The Brief

California’s legislative leaders don’t think the public should know whether federal agents are investigating state lawmakers for public corruption, nor do they believe taxpayers should know how much of their money the Legislature is spending on criminal defense lawyers.

Following recent reports that Southern California Sen. Susan Rubio has been questioned in a federal public corruption investigation, CalMatters filed requests with the state Assembly and Senate seeking copies of federal law enforcement subpoenas and search warrants dating to 2020.

CalMatters also sought under the California Legislative Open Records Act invoices or other records showing how much money the Legislature has spent since 2020 on legal bills related to federal criminal investigations.

Identical letters from the Rules Committees for the Assembly and Senate cited four reasons for denying the record requests including “the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”

The offices of Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire didn’t respond to CalMatters’ interview requests.

But the secrecy alarms open-government advocates.

“The public absolutely has a right to know whether … one of their representatives or public officials is under criminal investigation,” said Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that advocates for government transparency and accountability.

David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, another government transparency advocacy group, said the citation about the disclosure not serving the public interest “is the last refuge of the scoundrel and is invoked whenever somebody wants to withhold something inconvenient.”

The Legislative Open Records Act, first signed in 1975, gives lawmakers and their staff members more discretion to withhold records than most other public agencies have under the similar California Public Records Act.

But Loy said that even if they have a legal right to withhold records, public agencies usually have broad discretion to release them. In other words, they could release these records in the interest of transparency if they wanted to.

“Even if (secrecy) might be allowed under the letter of law in some circumstances, that is not a position that I think serves the public well,” he said. “We should err on the side of disclosure. The public has a right to know.”

In addition to the public interest citation, the Senate and Assembly letters cited three other reasons for denying the records. It said the Legislative Open Records Act allows documents to be “exempt from mandatory disclosure” if the records:

• “Are in the custody of the Legislative Counsel.”
• Are prohibited or not required for release by state or federal law.
• Involve issues of attorney-client privilege.

“Records responsive to your request, to the extent they exist, fall within the scope of the foregoing exemptions and will not be produced,” the letters said.

Rubio’s office didn’t answer questions Tuesday about whether she or her office has received any search warrants or subpoenas, who her attorney is, and whether taxpayer funds were spent on her legal defense.

Federal officials have not identified Rubio by name in the corruption probe, which has ensnared a handful of other officials in San Bernardino County, Compton, Commerce and Baldwin Park.

However, no one else matches the description of “Person 20,” who was accused in recently released federal court documents of asking for $240,000 in bribes from a cannabis company and accepting $30,000 in illegal campaign contributions.

The allegations stem from when Rubio was a member of the Baldwin Park City Council.

The Senate Rules Committee this week rejected CalMatters’ request for records that might detail which officials have been linked to federal public corruption investigations as well as how much taxpayers have been paying for criminal defense attorneys.

(

CalMatters

)

Rubio emphatically denied accepting bribes in an interview with CalMatters’ reporting partner, CBS News, that aired in January. But when asked if she denied that she was “Person 20” she responded, “I’m not saying that.”

“I’m just saying that you read the report,” she continued. “And whatever is happening there is happening there, but I think that (investigators) would have to reach out to me in order for me to be part of any of this.”

Rubio’s office previously told the Los Angeles Times in a statement that she “volunteered hours of her time” aiding the authorities in their investigation and that she “has no reason to believe that she would be included in any criminal allegations.”

Legislative Republicans called for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation, but the committee declined, saying long-standing Senate rules prohibit investigation of allegations that are more than three years old.

“Since the alleged activities occurred many years ago, the committee does not have jurisdiction to review this matter,” the committee’s chief counsel, Erin V. Peth, told CalMatters last month.

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, a lawyer who represents the Chico area, said that everyone, including lawmakers, has a right to be presumed innocent in criminal investigations.

But taxpayers also have a right to know, he said, “what kind of taxpayer money has been spent defending people in federal investigations.”

Days after the polls closed in Los Angeles County, Measure ER — a proposed half-percent local sales tax increase aimed at generating healthcare funds to offset massive federal cuts — appears to be losing.

If that happens, it will be the first time in more than a decade that county voters said no to a sales tax measure.

“It’s been almost like any tax measure will pass," said Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University political science professor.

Not anymore. Experts say affordability concerns may be eroding support even among L.A. County's traditionally tax-friendly voters.

“Number one, we're spent,” Guerra said. "Number two, we don't trust the general decision-making. Number three, when we've given you specific dollars for specific issues, you haven't done it.”

The votes are still being counted, but as of Friday evening Measure ER was losing 48.5% to 51.5%.

It requires a simple majority to pass.

Measure ER would raise county sales tax from 9.75% to 10.25% for five years, generating an estimated $1 billion a year for the county’s general fund. County supervisors approved a spending plan directing those dollars to offset cuts to Medi-Cal under the Trump administration's One Big Beautiful Bill.

But that plan is not legally binding — a detail that critics of Measure ER hammered throughout the campaign.

The Yes on ER campaign committee, called Restore Healthcare for Angelenos, was backed largely by nonprofit health clinics and led by St. John's Community Health, a nonprofit that operates a large network of health clinics in Southern California. The campaign raised nearly $10 million to spread its message in TV ads that told voters, “Trump’s cuts are threatening hospitals and ERs,” and in mailers that urged them to raise the tax a “temporary half a penny to save healthcare access.”

The No on ER campaign committee, No Blank Checks LA County, was led by the L.A. County Taxpayers Association. It raised less than $10,000, according to L.A. County campaign finance filings. Aidan Chao, chairman of the taxpayers group, said he’s confident the No campaign’s narrow lead will hold.

“LA County voters are sending a clear message,” Chao told LAist. “They reject another bait and switch sales tax increase on top of the cost-of-living pressures families are already shouldering.”

As of Friday, Measure ER was behind by about 44,000 votes. L.A. County has processed and counted more than 1.6 million ballots, according to election officials who estimate more than 540,000 ballots are yet to be counted.

Measure ER has been able to narrow its deficit since initial Election Day results, as later mail ballots tend to skew toward Democratic voters, according to poll-watchers.

“If that trend continues, it's possible that ER could pass,” said Zev Yaroslavsky,  director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Tax fatigue?

Guerra said he figured L.A. County voters would have approved Measure ER by a margin of 5 percentage points or more.

"So I am a little taken aback,” he said. “It shows that there is something that's going on with a very progressive voter in L.A. about, ‘OK, maybe enough taxes.’”

The No on ER campaign said it heard the same thing from voters.

“We knew there was an abnormal aversion to taxation right now, which is completely off from the precedent,” Chao told LAist. “Voters were frustrated with taxes in general. They were frustrated with the way counties spend the money.”

L.A. County residents already pay some of the highest sales tax rates in the country. The county’s base sales tax rate is 9.75%, while the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale have sales tax rates above 11%.

In 2017, about 69% of county voters approved Measure H, a temporary quarter-percent special sales tax to fund services for homeless people.

Then in 2024, a narrower 57% voted to double the homelessness sales tax and make it permanent though Measure A, which now generates an estimated $1 billion a year for L.A. County’s homeless services and affordable housing efforts.

Yaroslavsky, a former L.A. County supervisor, said L.A. County voters are feeling the pinch of inflation and cost of living increases. In a UCLA survey he oversees, the number of people concerned about taxes as part of their cost of living ticked up this year, according to Yarovslavsky

"The less you earn, the more painful it is," he said. “And that's why I think this is gonna be closer than the measures that were passed with 70%. This one is not gonna get much more than 51% or 52%, if it passes.”

The coalition against Measure ER included dozens of representatives from cities that argued another sales tax increase was the wrong answer to the county’s budget problems.

The tax measure’s most prominent opponent was Kathryn Barger. She was the sole L.A. County Supervisor to vote against putting the measure before voters, while the other four backed it.

Barger appeared in a video ad for the No on ER campaign urging voters to reject it. The ad was recorded on the supervisor’s personal time, her office told LAist.

“We all support quality healthcare, but Sacramento should step up before asking taxpayers to pay more,” Barger says in the video. “And despite what supporters claim, the money goes straight into the county’s general fund with no guarantee where it will end up.”

Supervisor Holly Mitchell and Measure ER backers at rally for supporters.

(

Yes on ER

)

Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who backed putting the bill on the primary ballot, has said a sales tax increase wasn’t ideal, but she was out of options.

“As the county government, we are required by statute to be the safety net level provider of last resort for healthcare services, and yet the federal government pulled the funding rug out from under us,” Mitchell told LAist.

Yarovslavsky said he understands why the County Supervisors put the measure on the ballot. L.A. County is looking to save crucial healthcare programs.

“This is not a transit program or bikeways — things you can live with or live without,” he said. “This is a matter of life and death.”

What’s next?

A spokesperson for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a statewide anti-tax group, told LAist the organization is hopeful a movement against higher taxes is gaining momentum throughout California.

“It's clear from the election results in Los Angeles and statewide that voters are frustrated and even angry that the taxes they already pay are apparently disappearing, while every urgent need, from firefighting to hospitals, somehow can't be funded without more tax increases,” Susan Shelley, a Howard Jarvis spokesperson, told LAist.

Voters in Palos Verdes Estates are poised to defeat a parcel tax. San Diego shot down a tax on vacant homes. Contra Costa County voters rejected a sales tax increase.

In the city of Los Angeles, voters appear to be on track to reject Measure TT, a hotel bed tax increase. And, yet, several tax measures are expected to land on the November ballot.

Firefighters with the Los Angeles Fire Department have gathered enough signatures to qualify a proposal for another half-percent sales tax to provide additional funding for the department. A committee backing the measure has raised more than $1.4 million, with major funding from the firefighters’ union, the California Community Foundation, a personal injury law firm representing firefighters, Airbnb and Rick Caruso.

Meanwhile, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has collected enough signatures to qualify a statewide ballot measure in California that, if passed, would effectively repeal the city of L.A.’s so-called “mansion tax” and make it harder for voters to pass local tax increases like Measure A or Measure ER in the future.

It would change the law to require a two-thirds supermajority of voter support to approve tax increases that land on the ballot through citizens’ initiatives — instead of a simple majority.

“We're confident that voters will approve it,” Shelley said. “We think this trend will continue in the November election.”

And the so-called “billionaire’s tax” is on California’s November ballot. The proposed one-time 5% tax on Californians worth over $1 billion aims to fund Medi-Cal programs.

Guerra says any proposed sales tax measures will face scrutiny in November.

"I think they're gonna have a little bit tougher time, and the strategy has to be much better developed,” he said.

The campaigns for and against Measure ER told LAist Friday it’s still too early to know which side won.

L.A. County election officials said they plan to release new vote count results every day until June 12, followed by regular updates until June 26.

They are required to complete and certify the county’s final official results by July 2.

Los Angeles is known for its bustling city landscape and even the beaches, but don’t miss out on what our coast has to offer. Here are a few ways to enjoy what’s beyond the sand.

Whale watching

Set sail to see whales, dolphins and more on a whale watching cruise. Harbor Breeze Cruises is just off the coast of Long Beach and the Los Angeles Harbor. Tours run throughout the day and start at $30 or $45 per person. Another option, Newport Whales, is further south in Orange County. Prices for those tours range from $38 to $84.50 per person. Good news, whale watching season never ends, so there’s always something to see.

People wanting to get out on the ocean can give sportsfishing a try

(

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

/

Los Angeles Times

)

Sports fishing 

For a little more action, give sports fishing a try. Marina del Rey Sportsfishing offers 4.5-hour and 7-hour fishing trips every day. You can rent a tackle kit, which includes a rod and reel. Valid fishing licenses are required for people ages 15 and up. You can get one at most local sports stores.

Learning to surf at one of L.A.'s beaches is a great way to enjoy the ocean.

(

Kevin Carter/Getty Images

/

Getty Images North America

)

Surfing lessons

If you’ve been meaning to take up a new hobby or sport, why not give surfing a chance? L.A. has no shortage of surf spots, meaning it also has no shortage of surf schools. Down at Santa Monica Surf Tours, $185 per adult or $165 per child gets you a 5.5-hour lesson that includes gear and lunch. Malibu Makos has “Surf Saturdays” where for $99 a person, you can get a 4-hour surf instruction with gear included.

As you drive up the high peaks of Catalina Island’s rural communities, endless views of the Pacific Ocean can be seen.

(

Zaydee Sanchez

/

LAist

)

Catalina Island 

From snorkeling to submarine tours, Catalina Island has excursions for everyone to enjoy. One-way tickets from Long Beach or San Pedro to Avalon cost about $45. Once you land, there’s no shortage of daytime adventures, including kayaking and fly fishing. You can find more information on activities here.

The Point Vicente Lighthouse trail in Rancho Palos Verdes is a breezy 1.6 miles and a great stop for ocean views.

(

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

/

Los Angeles Times

)

Beach Hikes 

Beach hikes might not count as an ocean exploration, but they can give you some of the best views of the Pacific. Here are a few (of many) coastal hikes for every skill level:

• Point Mugu Scenic and Overlook Trails Loop in Malibu - 2.6 miles
• Solstice Canyon Trail in Malibu - 2.9 miles
• Los Leones Trail in the Pacific Palisades - 4.2 miles

This story was originally published by CalMatters.

Democrat Xavier Becerra will advance to the November general election in the race for California governor, capping a sudden and dramatic ascent for a career politician who is running on his experience and his willingness to take on President Donald Trump.

Becerra, the former state attorney general, has secured nearly 27% of the vote in the June 2 primary, with about two-thirds of votes counted as of Friday afternoon. If elected in November, he would be the first Latino to serve as California governor in more than a century.

It’s still unclear who his opponent will be: Returns so far show Republican Steve Hilton most likely to advance with more than 26% of votes counted, though the trailing Democrat Tom Steyer has not conceded and could make up ground in the nearly three million votes that remain to be counted.

California uses a top-two primary system; the two candidates with the most votes advance to the November ballot regardless of party.

The November race could differ dramatically depending on the opponent. If it’s Hilton, Becerra would be heavily favored to win: Democrats in California outnumber Republicans nearly two-to-one, and Hilton is endorsed by Trump, whom Californians disapprove of in high numbers.

If it’s Steyer, California can expect an all-out slugfest between opposing wings of the Democratic Party, supercharged by the hundreds of millions of dollars Steyer has spent from his personal fortune on the primary alone.

While the hedge fund manager-turned-Democratic donor and climate activist has run a progressive campaign and garnered the support of Bernie Sanders surrogates, Becerra is favored by more of the Democratic establishment.

Becerra, who had lingered in the single-digits in polling, surged in popularity following the political implosion of former frontrunner Eric Swalwell, with establishment Democrats favoring the former Health and Human Services secretary and former state attorney general over former Rep. Katie Porter and the outsider Steyer.

It was a surprising and swift ascent for the mild-mannered career politician who was previously part of a crop of lower-polling Democratic candidates that party chair Rusty Hicks was publicly pressuring to drop out of the race.

“Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight,” Becerra said at an election night rally Tuesday in Los Angeles, calling his near-victory “the everyday miracle of living in a state that regularly makes the improbable seem inevitable.”

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.

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

Nearly three months ago, the Los Angeles City Council voted to fund homelessness prevention programs to the tune of $177 million. Despite approval by Mayor Karen Bass, the funding still has not been cleared by City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto.

Now, city leaders want answers about the delay.

A motion introduced earlier this week by Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said the “contracts remain unexecuted without explanation.” The motion goes on to say the setback has caused “$17 million ... in emergency rental assistance to sit unused” and has put “services for those at risk of homelessness in jeopardy.”

If passed by the council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee and later approved by the full council, Jurado’s motion would call on Feldstein Soto to report back to the council within 30 days about the reasons for the delay.

Representatives with the City Attorney’s Office did not respond to LAist’s repeated requests for comment.

Tenant aid providers said they’ve entered their third month without funding from the city. They said without an executed contract, legal aid organizations may soon have to lay off staff and stop taking eviction cases.

“The people who are providing the services are all in nonprofit organizations that don't have a great deal of extra funding to cover this contract that isn't being paid,” said Barbara Schultz, housing director at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.

How we got here

Feldstein Soto has held up the tenant aid funding since April 2025, when she refused to sign a previously approved five-year funding deal with the Legal Aid Foundation. At the time, she argued the contract should have gone through a competitive bidding process.

City officials responded by putting out a request for proposals. They ultimately selected the Legal Aid Foundation, along with several other tenant rights groups, to receive funding set aside for rent relief, tenant education, enforcement of the city’s tenant anti-harassment ordinance and programs that provide free attorneys to tenants facing eviction.

Much of the funding for these homelessness prevention programs comes from the city’s Measure ULA, also known as the L.A. “Mansion Tax.” That tax is now facing potential elimination from a statewide November ballot measure from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The city attorney’s tenant rights track record 

Feldstein Soto has frequently clashed with tenant rights advocates.

She previously attempted to remove the word “right” from the city’s “Right To Counsel” ordinance, which supplies free eviction defense attorneys to qualified tenants.

Feldstein Soto also has faced criticism for not prosecuting more landlords accused of rent gouging in the wake of the 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires.

She also was accused of failing to defend the rights of tenants at the high-rise apartment complex Barrington Plaza, who went to court to successfully fight wrongful evictions from landlord company Douglas Emmett, which donated to a campaign opposing Feldstein Soto’s opponent in the 2022 election.

Feldstein Soto launched an audit of the Legal Aid Foundation last year. So far, no findings have been released.

Schultz said the organization has provided all the financial and administrative documentation requested by the L.A. Housing Department related to the contracts.

Why it matters for renters

The Legal Aid Foundation is the lead contractor for the city’s eviction defense funding, but the money is shared with other legal aid organizations as well.

Elena Popp, who leads the Eviction Defense Network, said her small team of lawyers can’t continue to take on tenant cases until funding is approved.

“We're contemplating layoffs effective June 15 unless we can raise the part of the money that is our budget from the city,” Popp said. “If we lay people off, then tenants won't be served.”

Anna Urena, a paralegal with the Eviction Defense Network, says her organization would normally do intake for about 300 tenants per month.

“We're not taking on new cases. We're not representing new people right now because we don't know what's going to happen,” she said. “We really cannot leave our tenants behind.”

What’s next?

Jurado’s motion has not yet been scheduled for a vote in the council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee.

Based on her third-place showing so far in the June primary election results, it appears Feldstein Soto will not be L.A.’s city attorney much longer. Popp said Feldstein Soto’s lame duck status doesn’t bode well for the contract getting signed soon.

“She now has no incentive to sign, and pressure on her will not get her to sign,” Popp said. “If that happens and the City Council doesn't take charge of this, maybe hire outside counsel to get the approval, then we won't see any money until the new city attorney comes in.”