The Brief

Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed a set of bills meant to recognize incarcerated firefighters, including a historic measure to raise their pay to meet the federal minimum wage during active fires.

The wage increase, funded through the state budget, follows years of advocacy to improve pay and working conditions for incarcerated labor. That effort took on a new urgency after hundreds of incarcerated firefighters were deployed to battle deadly wildfires that hit Los Angeles in January.

State lawmakers this year introduced a seven-bill “Firefighting to Freedom” package to protect incarcerated firefighters and support job opportunities upon their reentry. Five of those bills were signed into law today, marking the most comprehensive changes to incarcerated firefighting in the state’s history.

Incarcerated firefighters previously earned between $5.80 and $10.24 per day, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. During active emergencies, Cal Fire pays them an additional $1 per hour. Now, they will earn $7.25 per hour when they’re on a fire.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Democrat from Culver City who authored the bill, said Californians should feel proud about the sense of moral clarity that crossed party lines.

“This is a historic and momentous day,” said Bryan. “The governor signing the bill is an incredibly powerful reminder that all labor is dignified and anybody who is willing to put their lives on the line deserves our gratitude.”

Bryan initially set out to raise wages for incarcerated firefighters to $19 per hour, but settled on the federal minimum wage after budget negotiations. The bill was opposed by the California State Sheriffs' Association over concerns of its potential fiscal impact on counties, which administer jails and could also face pressure to increase pay for incarcerated labor.

It received bipartisan support from nearly two dozen lawmakers.

“A number of years ago, when I worked for Cal Fire, you have never seen men work harder than with these crews,” said Assemblymember Heath Flora at a legislative hearing in September, a Republican from Ripon who co-authored the bill. “There is not a system — there is not a program — better than the fire camps with Cal Fire and the state of California.”

Bryan introduced the bill after voters last year rejected a ballot measure that would have ended forced labor in prisons and jails. It would have amended the state’s constitution to repeal language that allows involuntary servitude as a form of criminal punishment, making work assignments voluntary.

California’s incarcerated firefighters have long provided critical support to state, local and federal government agencies in responding to various emergencies, including wildfires and floods. They’re voluntary assignments.

Over 1,800 incarcerated firefighters live year-round in minimum-security conservation camps, also known as “fire camps,” located across 25 counties in California, according to the corrections department. Those numbers have dwindled in recent years due to a declining prison population.

Two of the proposals did not pass, including one that would have required Cal Fire to create more opportunities for incarcerated firefighters to secure firefighting jobs upon their release. The proposal, Assembly Bill 1380, did not reach Newsom.

That was disappointing to Royal Ramey, a formerly incarcerated firefighter who co-founded the nonprofit organization Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program, which sponsored the measure. But he said the other five bills signed by Newsom are “huge progress.”

“For me, transitioning from fire camp into a career was one of the hardest challenges of my life, and I know too many people who never got that chance,” said Ramey. “With these laws, we can change that story.”

The package of bills Newsom signed included:

• Assembly Bill 247: Requires incarcerated firefighters be paid $7.25 per hour while actively fighting a fire.
• Assembly Bill 799: Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pay a death benefit of $50,000 for the death of an incarcerated firefighter.
• Assembly Bill 812: Requires the corrections department to create regulations around referring incarcerated firefighters for resentencing.
• Assembly Bill 952: Requires the corrections department to establish and expand the Youth Offender Program Camp Pilot Program as a permanent program.
• Senate Bill 245: Streamlines and expedites the expungement process for formerly incarcerated firefighters.

“It’s incredibly heartening to see that the Legislature has taken the issue of protecting incarcerated firefighters seriously,” said Taina Angeli Vargas, executive director of the nonprofit organization Initiate Justice Action, which co-sponsored most of the bills. “It’s about time that the state of California began to treat them with more respect and dignity.”

Assemblymember Sade Elhawary, a Democrat from Los Angeles who authored the law to establish and expand the youth pilot program, said it’s an opportunity for the 13 other states that have incarcerated firefighters to “follow in the footsteps of California.”

“I hope this is the beginning of what will be a national movement to elevate the rights and opportunities for incarcerated firefighters,” she said. “All of these folks deserve more love and support.”

Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.

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

A federal judge ruled today that the Trump administration is not entitled to personal information belonging to California’s 23 million voters. Judge David O. Carter made the ruling.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice sued California, along with 22 other states and Washington, D.C., for access to their full, unredacted voter files. That includes driver’s license, social security numbers and other sensitive data.

DOJ officials said they needed the data to assess whether states were properly maintaining their voter rolls and ensuring "only American citizens are voting, only one time," as Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a social media post in December.

California refused, citing state and federal privacy law. Only a handful of states have complied with the government’s request for their full voter files, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which has been tracking the issue nationwide.

What did the judge say?

In Judge Carter’s ruling, he wrote that amassing sensitive information at the federal level would have a chilling effect on voter registration, which would lead to decreased turnout “as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose.”

He added, “This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy."

LAist emailed a request for comment to a spokesperson for the Department of Justice but has not yet received a response.

Reaction to the ruling

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, applauded the decision. The group had joined California in opposing the government’s data request.

“ We think that voters should never have to choose between their privacy interests and the right to participate in our democracy,” she said.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor and former Department of Justice employee said, “The court did what we thought the court should do.”

Levitt and a group of other former DOJ employees had filed an amicus brief in the case, siding with California.

In a news release, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber wrote: “I will continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy, and I will continue to challenge this administration's disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote.”

What's next?

The DOJ's lawsuits against other states are still making their way through the courts.

During a hearing in the case in December, Judge Carter said he anticipated his eventual ruling — whichever way it went — would be appealed, and that a final decision on the issue could rest with the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Superior Court judge has found that the city of Los Angeles violated public open records laws nearly two years ago by taking action on matters related to its homelessness response and failing to report it.

That decision could be a factor in an ongoing hearing in federal court where a different judge is considering whether to hold the city in contempt of court.

In a ruling last week, L.A. County Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin found that the city violated the Brown Act on two occasions in January and May 2024 when it took action in closed session on the following:

— approving an encampment reduction plan;

— approving a memorandum of understanding with the county for support on interim housing beds and other issues.

Afterward, the city did not report those approvals in open session.

The city argued its actions were allowed under the Brown Act because they stemmed from the ongoing settlement between the city and the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a group of business owners and residents who sued the city over its response to the homelessness crisis.

But Kin disagreed with that argument, saying what the city had done in closed session did not fall within the Brown Act exemptions because they were policy decisions, not litigation decisions concerning the L.A. Alliance settlement.

In federal court, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter has been overseeing the city’s compliance with the settlement. Carter has said he’s concerned “the city has demonstrated a continuous pattern of delay” in meeting its obligations.

Carter has been hearing testimony since November from city officials and others in an ongoing contempt-of-court hearing. This week, the judge said in court documents that he would consider Kin’s ruling as the contempt hearing proceeds.

The parties were last in federal court earlier this week. It’s not yet clear when that hearing will resume.

Sidewalk vendors can now apply to receive a free, health-code-compliant food vending cart through a new program launched in a partnership between the county and the city of Los Angeles.

Who can apply

To receive a cart, applicants must be at least 18 years old, live in LA County, be self-employed as a sidewalk vendor, and earn less than $75,000 annually from vending, according to a news release. Applicants must operate within unincorporated LA County or the city of LA, and commit to full compliance with public health and safety regulations.

You can find the application here.

Permits to secure

Vendors who are awarded carts will have to secure required permits in order to begin operating as fully permitted businesses. This includes obtaining the Compact Mobile Food Operation (CMFO) certificate from the LA County Department of Public Health and any Sidewalk Vending Registration Certifications or permits required to comply with the county and city sidewalk vending programs.

Applications will be selected by lottery, will be reviewed on a monthly basis, and will be prioritized based on “compliance readiness.” Priority will also be given to those who are based in the county’s “highest-need areas,” as according to the county equity explorer map.

Eligible applicants will be connected to partner organizations like Inclusive Action for the City to help navigate the permitting process and to provide business business support and language assistance.

What kind of carts?

Carts offered through the program include:

• Integrated grill carts for precooked meat for tacos, hot dogs, and hamburgers that are assembled on a cart
• Hot-holding carts for pre-portioned cooked tamales, corn, quesadillas, gyros, pupusas
• Cut fruit carts for fruits, bionicos, and acai bowls
• Cold-hold ice cream carts that store prepackaged ice cream items

Currently, the county and city have 50 hot-holding and 30 cold-holding carts for the first round of awards with 40 integrated grill carts underway.

More about the program

The launch of the Sidewalk Vending Cart Program – which invests $2.8 million in more than 280 carts – follows the passage of state legislation that decriminalized street vendors and that streamlined the permitting process.

“The program aims to help vendors meet new legal requirements, overcome financial barriers to formalization, and operate safely and legally in their communities,” according to the news release.

Los Angeles County Board Chair Hilda Solis said the program can help ensure a “permitted pathway” toward entrepreneurship.
“Many vendors are navigating increasingly difficult and uncertain times due to cruel federal immigration actions, and we know vendors play an essential role in the economic and cultural vitality of Los Angeles County,” Solis said in a statement. “This is more than a program — this is a chance to support small business growth, economic stability, and even generational wealth.”

The biggest mobile network in the United States, Verizon, experienced a huge outage on Wednesday, leaving at least tens of thousands of customers without cell service for much of the day.

An update on Verizon's website today said the outage had been resolved. "We are sorry for what you experienced and will continue to work hard day and night to provide the outstanding network and service that people expect from Verizon," it said.

What happened?

It's still unclear. Verizon has not posted details nor an explanation of the cause of the outage on its website. In an email to NPR, a company spokesperson wrote that the problem stemmed from "a software issue" and that Verizon is conducting a full review.And while Verizon hasn't released a figure for how many customers were affected, the staff at the Downdetector website — where users go to report service outages — posted on Facebook that they received 2.3 million outage reports for Verizon throughout the day. (That doesn't necessarily translate to 2.3 million affected customers.)

Cell networks experience small outages fairly regularly, though, and sizable ones are not uncommon. Verizon had a disruption across several major cities in September 2024, and competitor AT&T was hit by a large outage in February 2024, affecting more than 125 million registered devices and customers in all 50 states.

Sanjoy Paul, a wireless network expert at Rice University, says telecommunications systems have become more complex over the past decade and a half as they've moved from physical infrastructure — wires and cables — and into the cloud.

"What used to be a completely hardware-dependent network transformed into a complete software-dependent network," he said. That shift has given operators more flexibility to add services or tweak products but, he said, it has come at the expense of reliability.

With a cloud and software-based networks, there are more opportunities for glitches and attacks, he said. Small issues with computer code buried inside these systems can have big consequences.

What have been some consequences of the outage?

Users had no connectivity for much of the day and were only able to access "SOS" mode during the outage.

Verizon, which has styled itself as America's best and most reliable network, has been in damage control mode. The company has issued instructions for customers to restart their devices to reconnect to the network if they are still having problems. It also pledged $20 credits as "a way of acknowledging your time and showing that this matters to us," according to their website.

The Federal Communications Commission said in a statement it was "continuing to actively investigate and monitor the situation to determine next steps."

Could it happen again?

Yep — to Verizon or any of its competitors.

Since the cause of this latest outage remains unclear, it's too early to say whether or not this exact thing could happen again. But Lee McKnight, an associate professor in the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University, told NPR's Morning Edition outages are "a fact of life these days for major telecommunications firms."

"Modern telecom networks are cloud networks. 5G networks are mainly, like, hundreds of different cloud services," he said. "The telecom companies haven't yet adjusted their training to that reality, that their staff have to be expert not just in cell towers and wireless, like we think about, but about cloud services, like AWS, or Microsoft, or Google."

At the end of the day, experts say, consumers should consider having a "Plan B" for connectivity. That may mean a land line for your house or getting a second phone on a different cell network.
Copyright 2026 NPR