Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Rules to vote on legislation being scrutinized
    A group of men and women dressed in suits stand in a line in front of others, similarly dressed, who are seated in rows of tables. They are inside a fancy, gilded hall with expensive-looking chandeliers, columns and heavy red curtains.
    California legislators in the Senate chambers in the state Capitol on Dec. 5, 2022.

    Topline:

    From prohibiting non-disclosure agreements in bill negotiations to protecting utility ratepayers, bills keep dying this year despite lawmakers refusing to say “no” when it came time to vote. Is it time for the rules to change?

    The backstory: As CalMatters revealed in April, not voting is a common practice for California legislators. Last year, at least 15 bills died due to lack of votes instead of lawmakers actually voting “no” to kill them. So far this year, a database at CalMatters’ Digital Democracy indicates that at least 12 bills have died because lawmakers declined to vote.

    Read more ... to learn the different aspects and effects of the not-voting method from lawmakers.

    Among the most controversial bills that died this spring was a measure prompted by allegations that Gov. Gavin Newsom secured a lucrative benefit for a billionaire supporter by exempting his restaurants from a minimum wage increase.

    Newsom dismissed the allegations as “absurd,” but KCRA 3 reported that the public might never get a full accounting of what happened because participants to the bill negotiations signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that threatened them with legal action if they spoke about the issue.

    The controversy prompted a bill banning NDAs for legislative negotiations, but the bill died last month even though only one Democratic member of the Assembly Committee on Elections voted against it. It failed because five other Democrats on the committee didn’t vote.

    As CalMatters revealed in April, not voting is a common practice for California legislators. Last year, at least 15 bills died due to lack of votes instead of lawmakers actually voting “no” to kill them. So far this year, a database at CalMatters’ Digital Democracy indicates that at least 12 bills have died because lawmakers declined to vote.

    Insiders say it’s a way for legislators to be polite to colleagues and perhaps avoid a “no” vote on their own legislation. But critics say it’s also a way for legislators to dodge responsibility for their decisions.

    “Some will say that those bills were tough votes for lawmakers,” said Mike Gatto, a former Democratic legislator from Los Angeles. “But one must remember that the whole reason why the public elects these lawmakers is for them to take tough votes.”

    The Legislature’s bill-tracking website doesn’t distinguish whether a legislator declined to vote, was absent or if the lawmaker announced they were formally abstaining from voting.

    Now, with the launch of Digital Democracy, the public has easy access to video and transcripts that show just how often legislators are present in hearings and even engage in discussion, sometimes highly critical of the legislation, before staying silent during the call for a vote. Some legislators say the practice should be changed.

    “I think it is appropriate for legislators to basically vote ‘yes’ or vote ‘no,’ ” Santa Ana Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, a former federal prosecutor, recently told CBS News for a story done in collaboration with CalMatters. “But, you know, that is the system that we have. Should we change it? Probably.”

    Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire didn’t respond to CalMatters’ requests to discuss whether the Legislature’s rules on voting should change.

    Public safety, ratepayer protection bills die

    Among the bills that died recently from California Democrats not voting were several involving public safety issues. They include a bill that would have prohibited sexually violent predators from being released into communities unless they had a place to live. Another would have increased penalties for property crimes. A third would have made it harder for police to charge people with a crime for filing false complaints against officers.

    Another bill that died for lack of votes would restrict the controversial practice of gas and electric utilities from using ratepayer money for political lobbying. Senate Bill 938 was in response to a Sacramento Bee investigation last summer that revealed SoCalGas charged at least $36 million to ratepayers for political lobbying to oppose California policies aimed at addressing the climate crisis.

    Environmentalists and utility watchdog groups were outraged, arguing that ratepayers’ bills should only reflect the cost to deliver electricity or gas to their homes. They said shareholders should foot the bill for political lobbying.

    But Sen. Dave Min, a Democrat from Irvine, saw his bill to ban the practice fail in April before the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee. The committee has 18 members, so the bill needed at least 10 “yes” votes to advance. In two separate votes, six members of the committee declined to vote. When combined with Republicans’ “no” votes, the abstentions were enough to kill Min’s bill.

    At its April 16 hearing, Democratic Sens. Bill Dodd of Napa and Angelique Ashby from Sacramento questioned whether the legislation would help consumers since lobbying costs represent a small fraction of a utility’s expenses. In the end, they both declined to vote.

    Joining them were fellow Democrats Josh Newman, Anna Caballero, Susan Rubio and the committee’s chairperson, Steven Bradford. Dodd’s office was the only one to respond to CalMatters’ interview request.

    “I respect the author and his intent with the bill, but there were unanswered questions about the impact it would have on grants for fire prevention activities,” Dodd said in an emailed statement. “So I reserved voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ until those questions were answered.”

    Not voting on ‘Paneragate’ bill

    Several legislators who helped kill the bill banning NDAs from legislative negotiations were also present during that hearing.

    The four Democratic Assemblymembers on the elections committee who declined to vote on the NDA ban are Marc Berman of Cupertino, Steve Bennett of Oxnard, Akilah Weber of La Mesa and Matt Haney of San Francisco. Evan Low of Cupertino, who’s running for Congress, was absent for the hearing. The absence is recorded on the Legislature’s tally of votes the same as the lawmakers who stayed silent. None of them responded to interview requests.

    It was a controversial bill in part because it dealt with a scandal about the governor that broke in February when Bloomberg News reported that the Panera Bread chain appeared to be exempt from a new law that raised the state’s minimum wage to $20 for fast food workers. In the Bloomberg investigation, sources said the Newsom administration sought the exemption to benefit a billionaire Panera Bread franchise owner who is a major Newsom donor.

    After KCRA revealed that negotiators working on the minimum wage bill were required to sign NDAs, Republican Assemblymember Vince Fong introduced the bill to ban the practice for legislative negotiations. Labor groups opposed the bill, and business groups were split. Fong, who is running for Congress, didn’t return a request for comment.

    During the hearing, Assemblymembers Berman and Weber spoke with the bill’s author, but still declined to vote.

    “This is an extremely important bill that deals with a very important issue,” Weber said in the hearing. She also suggested the bill was drafted too quickly and she had questions about “whether or not the bill was too broad.”

    Gatto, a former Democratic Assemblymember, said it was especially galling that lawmakers refused to vote on the non-disclosure agreement bill, given the legislation “itself involves the sanctity of the (legislative) process.”

    “It just feels dirtier somehow,” Gatto said.

  • Is a wildflower 'superbloom' on the way?
    A green field covered mostly in orange flowers.
    Record winter rains led to this colorful explosion near the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve back in April 2023.

    Topline

    This on-and-off rain is looking like good news ... for wildflower lovers.

    Why now: We talked to Katie Tilford, a wildflowers expert at the Theodore Payne Foundation here in L.A., which is dedicated to native plants in California. And she is holding out hope that the rains this week and next will be just what we need to see California poppies and more bloom big in the upcoming weeks.

    The wildflower forecast: "A little more rain would be nice," she said, "Then I think we’ll have a really good bloom this year. Either way, I think there’s going to be some flowers for sure … but a little more rain would really just kick things up a notch.”

    How good might it get? And as for the question we always ask this time of year … will it be a superbloom kind of year? Only Mother Nature knows for sure. But Tilford says she’s already seeing signs there will be plenty of wildflowers to enjoy in the coming weeks, so you might want to make a plan to get out there.

    This on-and-off rain is looking like good news ... for wildflower lovers.

    We talked to Katie Tilford, our go-to wildflowers expert at the Theodore Payne Foundation here in L.A., which is dedicated to native plants and wildflowers in Southern California.

    And she is holding out hope the rains this week and next will be just what we need to see California poppies and more bloom big in the upcoming weeks.

    "A little more rain would be nice," she said, "Then I think we’ll have a really good bloom this year. Either way, I think there’s going to be some flowers for sure … but a little more rain would really just kick things up a notch.”

    And as for the question we always ask this time of year … will it be a superbloom kind of year?

    Only Mother Nature knows for sure. We plant nerds also know that that the term superbloom gets thrown around with regularity during wildflower season, even though it refers to very specific conditions created by a potent cocktail of early rains, cool temps, hot temps, and late rains. So, we repeat: Stay tuned.

    But Tilford says she’s already seeing signs there will be plenty of wildflowers to enjoy in the coming weeks, so you might want to make a plan to get out there.

    One surefire spot: the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, when the poppies hit full bloom. There is a live cam to help you time your trip for the best blooms.

    Another great resource is also the wildflower hotline hosted by Theodore Payne. Starting in March, it will be updated each Friday with the latest wildflower news and tips on where to see it all. Call: 818 768-1802, Ext. 7. 

  • Man who sawed them down gets 2 years in prison
    A green tree lays on the sidewalk. The bottom part of the trunk that the tree used to sit on still stands.
    A fallen tree on the sidewalk at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Hope Street in Los Angeles on April 21, 2025.

    Topline:

    A man who sparked outrage in downtown Los Angeles last year after using a chainsaw to cut down about a dozen streetside trees was sentenced to two years in prison.

    Why now: Samuel Patrick Groft, 45, was sentenced Wednesday after pleading no contest to nine felony counts of vandalism and two misdemeanor counts of vandalism in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

    The case against him: Groft sometimes hacked away at large, decades-old trees in the middle of the night, and for others, he wielded a cordless power saw on busy sidewalks in broad daylight, according to surveillance videos reviewed by the Los Angeles Police Department. Neighborhood outrage continued to grow as the destruction continued over the course of at least five days beginning April 17 until his arrest April 22 — Earth Day.

    The damage caused: LAist’s media partner CBS LA reported that witnesses at trial estimated there was nearly $350,000 in damage caused to city- and privately owned trees. At the time, Zach Seidl, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office, described the incident as “truly beyond comprehension.”

    What's next: Groft was ordered to pay restitution, a hearing for which is set for April 15.

  • Annual gathering with White House unraveling

    Topline:

    An annual meeting of the nation's governors that has long served as a rare bipartisan gathering is unraveling after President Donald Trump excluded Democratic governors from White House events.

    More details: The National Governors Association said it will no longer hold a formal meeting with Trump when governors are scheduled to convene in Washington later this month, after the White House planned to invite only Republican governors. On Tuesday, 18 Democratic governors also announced they would boycott a traditional dinner at the White House.

    Why it matters: The governors' group, which is scheduled to meet from Feb. 19-21, is one of the few remaining venues where political leaders from both major parties gather to discuss the top issues facing their communities. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that Trump has "discretion to invite anyone he wants to the White House."

    Read on... for what this means for the group and what happened last year at the White House meeting.

    An annual meeting of the nation's governors that has long served as a rare bipartisan gathering is unraveling after President Donald Trump excluded Democratic governors from White House events.

    The National Governors Association said it will no longer hold a formal meeting with Trump when governors are scheduled to convene in Washington later this month, after the White House planned to invite only Republican governors. On Tuesday, 18 Democratic governors also announced they would boycott a traditional dinner at the White House.

    "If the reports are true that not all governors are invited to these events, which have historically been productive and bipartisan opportunities for collaboration, we will not be attending the White House dinner this year," the Democrats wrote. "Democratic governors remain united and will never stop fighting to protect and make life better for people in our states."

    Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who chairs the NGA, told fellow governors in a letter on Monday that the White House intended to limit invitations to the association's annual business meeting, scheduled for Feb. 20, to Republican governors only.

    "Because NGA's mission is to represent all 55 governors, the Association is no longer serving as the facilitator for that event, and it is no longer included in our official program," Stitt wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

    The governors' group, which is scheduled to meet from Feb. 19-21, is one of the few remaining venues where political leaders from both major parties gather to discuss the top issues facing their communities. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that Trump has "discretion to invite anyone he wants to the White House."


    "It's the people's house," she said. "It's also the president's home, so he can invite whomever he wants to dinners and events here at the White House."

    Representatives for Sitt and the NGA didn't comment on the letter. Brandon Tatum, the NGA's CEO, said in a statement last week that the White House meeting is an "important tradition" and said the organization was "disappointed in the administration's decision to make it a partisan occasion this year."

    In his letter to other governors, Stitt encouraged the group to unite around common goals.

    "We cannot allow one divisive action to achieve its goal of dividing us," he wrote. "The solution is not to respond in kind, but to rise above and to remain focused on our shared duty to the people we serve. America's governors have always been models of pragmatic leadership, and that example is most important when Washington grows distracted by politics."

    Signs of partisan tensions emerged at the White House meeting last year, when Trump and Maine's Gov. Janet Mills traded barbs.

    Trump singled out the Democratic governor over his push to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports, threatening to withhold federal funding from the state if she did not comply. Mills responded, "We'll see you in court."

    Trump then predicted that Mills' political career would be over for opposing the order. She is now running for U.S. Senate.

    The back-and-forth had a lasting impact on last year's conference and some Democratic governors did not renew their dues last year to the bipartisan group.
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • New law bans fees for help with VA
    Governor Gavin Newsom, a man with light skin tone, slightly gray hair, speaking with his hand raised behind a podium with signage that reads "Delivering for veterans."
    Gov. Gavin Newsom answers questions at the California Department of Veterans Affairs after signing a bill that prohibits unaccredited private companies from billing former military service members for help with their claims, in Sacramento on Feb. 10, 2026.

    Topline:

    Many veterans turn to private companies for help filing disability claims at the Department of Veterans Affairs and then face bills that run well into the thousands of dollars.

    About the new law: A booming industry that charges veterans for help in obtaining the benefits they earned through military service must shut down or dramatically change its business model in California by the end of the year under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Tuesday. The law prohibits unaccredited private companies from billing former military service members for help with their Department of Veterans Affairs claims.

    The backstory: Technically, it was already illegal under federal law to charge veterans for that work, but Congress 20 years ago removed criminal penalties for violations, and scores of private companies emerged, offering to speed up and maximize benefit claims.

    Read on... for more about the new law.

    A booming industry that charges veterans for help in obtaining the benefits they earned through military service must shut down or dramatically change its business model in California by the end of the year under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Tuesday.

    The law prohibits unaccredited private companies from billing former military service members for help with their Department of Veterans Affairs claims.

    Technically, it was already illegal under federal law to charge veterans for that work, but Congress 20 years ago removed criminal penalties for violations, and scores of private companies emerged, offering to speed up and maximize benefit claims.

    “We owe our veteran community a debt of gratitude — for their years of service and sacrifice," Newsom said in a written statement. "By signing this bill into law, we are ensuring veterans and service members get to keep more money in their pockets, and not line the coffers of predatory actors. We are closing this federal fraud loophole for good.”

    Critics call the private companies “claim sharks” because their fees are often five times the monthly benefit increase veterans obtain after using their services. CalMatters in September, for instance, interviewed a Vietnam-era veteran who was billed $5,500 after receiving benefits that would pay him $1,100 a month.

    Depending on a disability rating, a claim consulting fee under that model could easily hit $10,000 or more.

    “We owe it to our veterans to stand with them and to protect them from being taken advantage of while navigating the benefits they've earned,” said Sen. Bob Archuleta, a Democrat representing Norwalk. Archuleta, a former Army officer, carried the legislation. “This is not about politics; it's about doing what's right. Making millions of dollars on the back of our veterans is wrong. They've earned their benefits. They deserve their benefits.”

    California’s new law is part of a tug-of-war over how to regulate claims consulting companies. Congress for several years has been at a stalemate on whether to ban them outright, allow them to operate as they are or regulate them in some other way.

    California is among 11 states that have moved to put the companies out of business, while another group of mostly Republican-led states has legalized them, according to reporting by the veteran news organization The War Horse.

    That split in some ways reflects the different ways veterans themselves view the companies. The bill had overwhelming support from organizations that help veterans file benefits claims at no cost, such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, as well as from Democratic Party leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

    But the VA’s claims process can take months and sow uncertainty among applicants. Several of the claims consulting companies say they have helped tens of thousands of veterans across the country, and that they have hundreds of employees.

    Those trends led some lawmakers to vote against the measure, including Democrats with military backgrounds.

    “We're going to say to you, ‘Veteran, you know what, I don't know if you are too stupid or too vulnerable or your judgment is so poor you can't choose yourself,'” said Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat and former Army colonel, during a debate over the measure last month.

    The new law was such a close call for lawmakers that nine of 40 senators did not vote on it when it passed that chamber last month, which counts the same as a “no” vote but avoids offending a constituency that the lawmaker wants to keep.

    It was also one of the 10 most-debated measures to go before the Legislature last year, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Lawmakers spent 4 hours and 39 minutes on the bill at public hearings in 2025 and heard testimony from 99 speakers.

    Two claims consulting companies spent significant sums hiring lobbyists as they fought the bill, according to state records. They were Veterans Guardian, a North Carolina-based company that spent $150,000 on California lobbyists over the past two years; and Veterans Benefit Guide, a Nevada-based company that spent $371,821 lobbying on Archuleta’s bill and a similar measure that failed in 2024.

    Those companies view laws like California’s as an existential threat. Both have founders with military backgrounds. Veterans Benefit Guide sued to block New Jersey’s law prohibiting fees for veterans claim consulting, and a federal appeals court sided with the company last year.

    "This was the hardest bill I’ve had to work on since I’ve been in the Legislature," said Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, a Santa Clarita Democrat who supported the law. "We know why that is, because there was so much money on the other side."

    Charlotte Autolino, who organizes job fairs for former military service members as the chairperson of the Veterans Employment Committee of San Diego, criticized Newsom’s decision to sign the law. She spoke to CalMatters on behalf of Veterans Benefit Guide.

    “The veterans lose,” she said. They lose the option. You’re taking an option away from them and you’re putting all of the veterans into one box, and that to me is wrong.”

    But David West, a Marine veteran who is Nevada County’s veterans service officer, commended Newsom. West was one of the main advocates for the new law.

    “The veterans of California are going to know that when (Newsom) says he’s taking care of everybody, he’s including us; that he values those 18- and 19-year-olds who are raising their hands, writing a blank check in the form of their lives; to then ensure that they aren’t writing checks to access their benefits,” West said.

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