The Brief

About 4,000 California Department of Public Health employees have been told they must use a federal verification system to prove they’re U.S. citizens or otherwise legally eligible to work.

Leaders of the agency said in a memo obtained by CalMatters that the verification is necessary to receive federal funding, but employees and unions are resisting the directive.

In the memo, a department human resources deputy director asked employees to comply with a series of deadlines that culminate on April 10. A separate document distributed by the department said that failing to complete the verification may result in the state losing a contract with the Centers for Disease Control for the national death index, which collects death certificate data from authorities nationwide.

The department is also making the move to address incomplete employment eligibility records identified in a recent audit, according to the Service Employees Union International Local 1000, which represents roughly 3,000 department employees.

As at other U.S. employers, all new California health department employees complete a federal I-9 form to prove their eligibility to work. The department is now asking them to enroll in E-Verify, a program administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration. That system compares information provided by an employee on the I-9 to records in federal databases, including at Social Security and the Department of Homeland Security. In some cases it also prompts employers to compare each applicant’s identification document photo with the one they provided during the E-Verify process. The memo said employees will specifically use E-Verify+, which combines filling out an I-9 with verification. Employees hired before November can opt out of using that specific version of E-Verify.

SEIU Local 1000 President Anica Walls told CalMatters in an email that forcing all employees to use E-Verify “raised serious concerns for our members about privacy, data security, and the unnecessary re-verification of workers who are already legally employed.”

The union sent a petition to executives in charge of the state agency last month to express concern about the verification and underline that employees submitted documents to prove their work eligibility when they were hired. Walls told CalMatters the health agency is currently the only California state department the union is aware of that has asked their employees to recertify their legal status. The union represents about 100,000 state employees at 140 state agencies, boards, commissions and departments.

“When federal systems and funding conditions are used to justify expanded data collection from workers, it raises red flags — especially when those workers have already met employment eligibility requirements,” she wrote. “Our members are concerned about their personal data being sent to federal systems with known accuracy and security issues. And this is coming at a time when both U.S. citizens and immigrant workers are understandably concerned about how employment data could be accessed or used by federal agencies.”

The E-Verify+ requirement is creating fear and uncertainty among employees and may affect employee recruitment and retention in the future, said Jacqueline Tkac, president of the California Association of Professional Scientists-UAW Local 1115, a union that represents roughly 800 health department employees. Amid reports of ICE activity at workplaces and people being taken off the street, the timing could not be worse.

“E-Verify+ is not a neutral administrative tool. It’s deeply integrated with DHS databases, including systems used by ICE, and relies on biometrics and cross-agency data sharing,” she said in a statement shared with CalMatters. “Introducing this at a time when immigrant communities and public health scientists are being openly targeted by the current federal administration is extremely chilling.”

The California Department of Public Health did not respond to multiple requests to answer questions. State information officer Nicole Skow told CalMatters that the California Department of Human Resources does not monitor how state agencies verify employment eligibility and that use of E-Verify is determined at a department level.

Since it became available in the 1990s, E-Verify has been, by default, a voluntary program for employers, but it has become mandatory for more and more of them over time. The federal government has required E-Verify for certain contracts since 2009 and more than 20 states now require E-Verify for their own contracts or to issue business licenses. Earlier this month, Florida lawmakers passed a bill that requires employers of all sizes to use the federal program.

Critics of E-Verify say the program needs reforms to address instances in which it makes mistakes, including cases where people commit identity fraud to get jobs they shouldn’t have and false positives leading people to lose jobs that they were lawfully allowed to have. Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data and the E-Verify error rate, if Congress passed an E-Verify mandate today, the work eligibility status of more than 120,000 people would get inaccurately labeled, allowing ineligible immigrants to work and labeling some authorized workers ineligible, which could lead to loss of wages or jobs, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, during a hearing last month where members of Congress debated a bill that would require E-Verify use for all federal contracts.

The health department’s push to prove eligibility comes at a time when the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is ramping up I-9 audits that may precede raids. It also comes on the heels of ICE agents shooting and killing two people in Minnesota, the deaths of multiple people in ICE detention facilities, and multiple news reports that the Department of Homeland Security wants to bring similar tactics to California and New York.

It’s possible the department wants to prepare for or forestall an audit from ICE. I-9 audits increased in Minnesota in recent weeks, Minneapolis-based immigration attorney Matthew Webster told CalMatters. Webster said some appear indiscriminate, with audit notices “basically just being dropped off door to door,” and some seeming to be retaliatory, like a hospital where staff protested ICE’s treatment of a patient shortly before the hospital was audited, and a St. Paul toy store that gave away whistles that protesters use to alert their neighbors to ICE activity, also shortly before it was audited. Webster expects such audits to become more commonplace as tens of billions of dollars continue to pour into the law enforcement agency from the federal budget.

A set of “Frequently Asked Questions” drafted by the California Department of Public Health and distributed to employees describes E-Verify+ as intended to “reduce errors, streamline onboarding, and improve the overall employee experience.”

But one employee, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid retaliation, told CalMatters that in light of recent events, they’re concerned about the department providing employee photos to the Department of Homeland Security under E-Verify. They also said the health department should have made it clearer that employees could opt out of the “plus” version of E-Verify and should extend this option to people hired since November, who must always use E-Verify+, according to the questions document.

“Nowhere in the memo does it tell us we can opt out,” they said. “That information only came after employees raised concerns to the director.”

For the record: The original version of this story did not correctly describe what health department workers are being asked to verify. It is employment eligibility, whether through citizenship or other legal channels.

INGLEWOOD, Calif. (AP) — Kaan Ayhan scored on the final kick of the match, and Turkey beat the United States 3-2 Thursday night for its only win of the World Cup.

Auston Trusty scored in the third minute and Sebastian Berhalter got a tying goal early in the second half for the Americans, who had already won Group D with victories over Paraguay and Australia. Coach Mauricio Pochettino’s team will meet Bosnia-Herzegovina in the Round of 32 on Wednesday.

Pochettino fielded nine new starters for this low-stakes game, but Christian Pulisic entered in the 58th minute. He hadn’t played since the first half of the Americans’ opener due to a calf injury.

Arda Güler and Orkun Kökçü scored in the first half of a resilient performance by Turkey, which had already been eliminated after losing its first two matches despite largely dominating both statistically.

Turkey improbably won in the eighth minute of stoppage time when Can Uzun got the ball in space on the back post and pushed it past sprawling goalkeeper Matt Turner to Ayhan, who slid to knock it home.

The game’s meaninglessness didn’t matter to the raucous sellout crowd that packed SoFi Stadium. The American team’s fan base has been energized by its strong start to this home World Cup -- and this Los Angeles-area crowd was still chanting and standing when Berhalter airmailed a long corner to Trusty, who made the stadium shake when he banged it home inside the back post.

Trusty’s goal was the Americans’ seventh of the tournament, tying their scoring record for any World Cup before knockout play even begins. It was also the 173rd goal of this tournament, breaking the record for the most combined goals scored in a World Cup set in Qatar four years ago — and doing it in four fewer matches.

Turkey evened it in the 10th minute with an excellent two-man game from Baris Alper Yilmaz and Güler, the 21-year-old Real Madrid rising star.

Berhalter tied it in the 49th minute by running on to a loose ball about 20 yards from the net for a vicious strike.

Pulisic replaced Tim Weah in the 58th minute for his first game action since the first half of their 4-1 victory over Paraguay nearly two weeks ago.

Pulisic said this week that he is ready to play again after coming out at halftime with a calf injury in the Americans’ home World Cup opener. The AC Milan midfielder entered the 2-2 game to an enormous roar, and he created a scoring opportunity just a couple of minutes later with a dynamic run down the left side.

Pulisic nearly scored again in the 63rd minute, but his quick shot off a nice pass from Berhalter was knocked off the goalpost by Turkey goalkeeper Ugurcan Cakir, and Brenden Aaronson botched the resulting sitter.

The traditional way of voting in Huntington Beach could be upended after a judge’s ruling this week in a case accusing the city of diluting the electoral power of its Latino residents.

What happened?

The judge ordered Surf City to adopt ranked-choice voting for the November general election. Ranked-choice voting is where voters rank all candidates in order of preference, so if your first choice is eliminated, your vote transfers to your second-choice candidate.

It’s also the type of voting that helped Zohran Mamdani seize victory in the New York City mayoral race.

Why it matters

The ruling comes in a legal challenge to the city’s at-large elections, arguing Latino voters are unfairly disadvantaged and unable to elect a candidate of their choice. Orange County Superior Court Judge Craig Griffin agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that “racially polarized voting has regularly occurred in Huntington Beach elections.”

The backstory

The case was brought to court more than two years ago by the nonprofit group Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and Victor Valladares, a Huntington Beach resident and local Democratic activist.

They argued that the city’s predominantly Latino neighborhood of Oak View had suffered decades of neglect, in part because residents there lacked the voting power to get representation in city government.

The bigger picture

Dozens of cities across Orange County and elsewhere in California have faced similar challenges to at-large elections over the past decade. Most have settled out of court by adopting district elections, whereby voters elect a candidate to represent their area, rather than citywide.

The change has coincided with an increase in Latino city council members in some Orange County cities.

Why ranked-choice voting?

Judge Griffin wrote that ordering the city to adopt ranked-choice voting was a “less drastic remedy” to bolster Latinos’ voting power than district elections. Currently in Huntington Beach, all residents vote citywide for city council seats, and the top vote-getters win.

With district elections, only people within a particular district can vote for a particular seat, which advocates say helps ensure districts see themselves represented in their local government bodies.

Among the advantages of a ranked-choice system, advocates say, is that it gives voters more freedom to vote for their favorite candidate, even if they think that person won’t ultimately win.

What does the ruling say, exactly?

The ruling orders Huntington Beach to implement ranked-choice voting for the November 2026 general election, if the Orange County Registrar of Voters can support the quick switch. The ruling also calls for the city to elect all seven councilmembers at once, rather than staggering the elections, as it currently does per the city’s charter.

Judge Griffin had delayed his ruling earlier this year to consider the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which ruled that race cannot play a role in the drawing of voting districts. Griffin ultimately determined that “nothing in Callais alters this Court’s decision” in the Huntington Beach case.

What’s next?

Both sides have two weeks to raise objections to the tentative ruling. Kevin Shenkman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said he would not be surprised if the city appeals. City Attorney Mike Vigliotta told LAist in an email that his office is “reviewing the decision with outside counsel that litigated the case and determining next steps.”

We reached out to the Orange County Registrar of Voters for comment, and did not hear back before publication. If and when that changes, we will update this story.

How to attend Huntington Beach City Council meetings

• Huntington Beach holds City Council meetings on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 2000 Main St.
• You can also watch City Council meetings remotely on HBTV via Channel 3 or online, or via the city’s website. (You can also find videos of previous council meetings there.)
• The public comment period happens toward the beginning of meetings.
• The city generally posts agendas for City Council meetings on the previous Friday. You can find the agenda on the city’s calendar or sign up there to have agendas sent to your inbox.

LAist staff writer Sammy Marvin also contributed to this report.

A judge has ruled that a Metro bus project in a congested area of Los Angeles can go forward, for now, without incorporating bike lanes that street safety advocates argue are required by city law.

The $400 million project will add dedicated bus lanes along a more than 12-mile-long stretch of Vermont Avenue between 120th Street and Sunset Boulevard. The stretch of road has among the highest rates of pedestrian deaths and injuries in the city.

The ruling from June 15 is a preliminary decision on an injunction request that’s part of a lawsuit brought by Joe Linton, who argues that L.A.’s role in the design and permitting process of the project triggers Measure HLA street safety improvements. The L.A. City Attorney and Metro have rejected that interpretation of the law.

Linton filed the lawsuit in April 2025. He is the editor of the transportation publication Streetsblog LA. Linton is filing the suit as a resident of L.A., not in his capacity as an editor for Streetsblog.

What is Measure HLA?

In 2015, the L.A. City Council adopted Mobility Plan 2035, which identified networks of streets to improve with protected bike lanes, pedestrian signal improvements, bus lanes and other enhancements.

Seven years later, frustrated with a lack of progress on the plan, the local nonprofit Streets for All began campaigning for Measure HLA. The ballot measure, which was passed by voters in 2024, legally requires the city to implement Mobility Plan upgrades when it repaves at least one-eighth of a mile of a street located in one of the networks.

What are the key issues at stake in the lawsuit? 

There’s been a longstanding disagreement over whether Measure HLA applies to Metro’s work in city projects. Metro and the city of L.A. say the ordinance only applies to projects the city leads. Streets for All and Linton say the question of who leads a project is a technicality and that the city is obligated to follow Measure HLA because it’s responsible for approving certain elements of the project’s designs and permits.

The Mobility Plan calls for bike lanes along the same stretch of Vermont Avenue that Metro is working on.

Linton’s lawsuit says the city didn’t implement the bike lanes in accordance with Measure HLA when it resurfaced Vermont Avenue service roads in the past and that it should implement the improvements as part of the Vermont Transit Corridor project.

What are the details of the injunction? 

As the lawsuit plays out in court, Linton requested an injunction that sought to prevent the city from approving final design plans for the project without the bike lanes that Measure HLA calls for.

L.A. County Superior Court Judge Kristin Escalante denied the request on June 15. Escalante wrote in her decision that the city neither initiated the project nor selected Vermont Avenue for resurfacing and won’t be constructing the project itself.

“Metro’s coordination with the city does not transform the project into one made by or undertaken by the city,” Escalante wrote in her decision.

In April and June, Escalante denied Linton’s requests for pre-trial judgement on two other issues in his lawsuit, including deciding if resurfacing work on Vermont Avenue service roads triggered HLA-mandated upgrades and determining whether the city’s HLA ordinance represents an “impermissible amendment” of the ordinance.

What happens next?

The ruling is a preliminary decision. Linton said his legal team is preparing for the case to go to trial.

 “We didn’t lose at the end of the day,” Linton told LAist. “It’s a setback, but it’s a skirmish and not the outcome of the battle.”

Metro said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

LAist reached out to the L.A. City Attorney and did not hear back.

Are other legal battles taking place? 

Yes, there are two additional ongoing lawsuits that are related.

Linton filed a second lawsuit saying L.A. is using loopholes, like “large asphalt repairs,” to skirt Measure HLA requirements.

Separate from Measure HLA, Metro is working on another bus rapid transit project to connect North Hollywood and Pasadena with construction set to begin this summer. Metro filed a lawsuit in May saying Burbank is, without authority, refusing to grant the transit agency construction permits. On June 18, Metro filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to get the necessary permits so it can begin construction in July and ensure the bus project is ready for the 2028 Olympics.