The Brief

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Law enforcement officers will be banned from interfering with California elections under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Wednesday, just in time for the June 2 primary election.

The law, which takes effect immediately, criminalizes the act of taking cast ballots from the custody of a local election official, as gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco did earlier this year when he seized more than 600,000 ballots from his own county’s registrar of voters. Although Bianco claimed he was checking for proof of fraudulent voting, there was no evidence to suggest any ballots were cast improperly.

“We have to step up, and we have to draw the line. We have to clarify the rules of engagement,” Newsom told reporters before signing the legislation. “It’s a warning to the folks out there that think they can do the bidding of the Trump administration.”

State lawmakers originally introduced the measure, Senate Bill 73, to guard against potential federal interference with California’s elections, given the Trump administration’s animosity toward the state and the president’s desire to keep Congress in GOP hands.

But Bianco’s decision to seize ballots turned a hypothetical threat into a real one, spurring legislators to seize the moment and rush the bill through so it could take effect before Election Day.

The new law makes it illegal for a county registrar to surrender ballots or voting equipment to law enforcement agents such as Bianco or his deputies. Riverside County Registrar Art Tinoco would have violated the law by allowing the sheriff’s department to take the ballots, despite the search warrant they presented.

“Voters should never wonder whether ballots were improperly handled,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, one of the bill’s Democratic coauthors and a former Santa Cruz County registrar. “And law enforcement powers should never be misused in ways that jeopardize the integrity of our democratic process.”

The law also reiterates that the attorney general, secretary of state or local county elections officials can sue any person, business or entity that takes “a package containing ballots” from an election official’s custody.

Election and voting advocates praised the Legislature for responding quickly to what they say was an “unprecedented” act of local law enforcement seizing ballots from an elections office.

“That never happened anywhere in the country before,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. She added that the Legislature’s decision to push for this law shows voters “they are aware that something unprecedented has taken place.”

Legislators included safeguards in the law that allow the attorney general and secretary of state in some circumstances to override the authority of a county election official — such as if a registrar permitted armed personnel to stage near polling places.

Those override privileges are pointed, preemptive maneuvers likely spurred by the threat of a rogue county election official such as Shasta County’s embattled registrar of voters, Clint Curtis. The self-proclaimed “elections integrity advocate” lived in Florida and had no experience administering elections before the county board of supervisors appointed him registrar in 2024.

Lawmakers are seeking to ensure state officials are “able to override a local effort to undermine the state's rules,” Alexander said. “This is not the first time the state is being responsive to events happening in Shasta County.”

Curtis has aligned himself with 2020 election deniers, publicly expressed skepticism about voting machines and significantly reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the county. He faces several accusations of workplace violence and harassment, including threats to drag staffers out of his office by their hair. Curtis has denied all accusations.

The new law also prohibits any individual from allowing any law enforcement agent to “access, disrupt, modify or take possession of” any voting technology without a court order.
Another provision prohibits election observers from challenging voter signatures. Last fall, the U.S. Justice Department, at the request of the California GOP, announced it would send election observers to California for the special election on Proposition 50, which sparked fears that President Donald Trump was meddling in an effort to change the outcome.

Ballot seizure is just one way outside actors could interfere with California’s elections, Alexander said. Another is the state’s lengthy ballot counting process, which has fueled conspiracy theories and baseless claims that the results should not be trusted.

Advocates are pushing Newsom to include about $55 million in the state budget for county election offices to buy new equipment and hire more staff to speed up counting.

Newsom told reporters Wednesday that funding negotiations are “very, very positive” and “we’re going to land on a number very, very shortly.”

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

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.

Updated June 23, 2026 at 17:17 PM ET

A bipartisan majority in Congress has voted in favor of a war powers resolution to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran.

The Senate voted 50 to 48 on Tuesday afternoon, with four Republicans joining Democrats in support. They were Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski.

The measure, which is not legally binding and will not be sent to the White House for a signature, was approved by the House earlier this month.

"Today, Congress stood up to Donald Trump and voted to end his costly, unnecessary, and devastating war with Iran," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement after the vote. "The message from the only branch of government with the power to declare war is unmistakable: the Trump administration must withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran."

President Trump criticized the resolution after it passed the House, writing on Truth Social that lawmakers voted "to limit my War Powers, right in the middle of my final negotiations to end the War with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Who would do such an unpatriotic thing. They know where the negotiations stand. The Democrats are fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome. They would rather have our Country fail than give me another, of many, victories."

Tuesday's vote comes at a moment when the U.S. and Iran are engaged in delicate negotiations to permanently end the conflict, the initial terms of which have been broadly criticized by members of both parties.

Copyright 2026 NPR

A chance of dry lightning and thunderstorms could increase fire risk across the region as this week’s heat lingers, according to the National Weather Service.

The Antelope and Cuyama valleys could see temperatures as high as 106 degrees. Tuesday and Wednesday will be the hottest period for most of Southern California. The L.A. County Department of Public Health also issued a Heat Advisory through Thursday for valleys and mountain communities. The advisory is issued when hot weather may cause heat-related illness for some people.

To top it off, meteorologists say there will also be increased humidity.

What does the fire risk look like?

The National Weather Service says there will be fire risk through Sunday across L.A. County.

Devin Black, a meteorologist at the agency, said possible fires might have higher potential to grow due to south and southwest winds blowing as high as 40 mph.

The risk is highest in the L.A. County Mountains and Antelope Valley.

Is there a chance of storms, too?

There’s a 5% to 15% chance of thunderstorms, according to NWS. Those storms might bring dry lightning and erratic winds across the eastern San Gabriel Mountains and Antelope Valley tonight, which Black said increases fire risk.

What about conditions near the warehouse fire?

Black emphasized that the possibility of erratic winds can only happen if there is a storm this afternoon. If they do, the winds might make the smoke near the warehouse fire blow in another direction and spread to other areas. A particle pollution advisory was extended to Wednesday by air quality officials for the Los Angeles area.

Punk rock — known for its fast, aggressive sound — evolved out of an underground anti-establishment subculture in the 1970s and 80s. Bands like the Black Flag, The Ramones, and X led the way, particularly in Southern California.

While the anniversary of punk’s inception is contested, the Skirball Cultural Center is celebrating the 50th anniversary in the United States, exploring how a generation of misfits challenged the rules and helped reshape culture from the margins, with its latest exhibit titled "Outsiders, Outcasts, Rebels and Weirdos: Punk Culture 1976–86."

Cate Thurston is the chief curator of the exhibit. She joined AirTalk, LAist’s daily news program, to talk about how the local punk scene played a pivotal role in shaping the genre.

L.A.’s punk wave

It wasn’t until the mid 70s that L.A.’s punk scene took off, partially because popular venues were still banking on the mainstream soft rock scene of the time.

Map of the robust Punk scene across the LA Basin, featured in the Skirball exhibit.

(

smg photography/Sarah M Golonka

/

http://www.smg-photography.com

)

“There wasn’t the traditional club infrastructure for it,” said Thurston, adding that punk bands would play wherever they could, including places like the Ukrainian Cultural Center and even more unorthodox venues like roller rinks.

Hong Kong Cafe vs. Madame Wong’s

Performer at the Hong Kong Cafe in Chinatown on Nov. 7, 1981.

(

Los Angeles Photographers Collection

/

L.A. Public Library

)

In the late 70s, two Chinese restaurants — Hong Kong Cafe and Madame Wong’s — sat directly across from each other in L.A.’s Chinatown. These venues led the local punk movement and even had a well-documented rivalry, which you can see reported in the L.A. Times.

Amy in Fullerton called into AirTalk to share that her brother actually started the Hong Kong Cafe.

“We were the first club outside of the Masque to play bands like Fear, X, Black Flag, the Germs, and art bands like Nervous Gender, The Bags, and Alice Bag,” she said.

“Both the Hong Kong Cafe and Madame Wong's were considered institutions in the L.A. punk scene that paved the way for all sorts of punk bands with different styles,” Thurston said.

Madame Wong’s closed its doors in 1985, and Hong Kong Cafe followed a decade later, shutting down in 1995.

Rooted in rebellion

Americans in the mid 70s felt the weight of economic uncertainties, including high gas prices and inflation — not unlike today.

Thurston said this is part of the reason punk rock was born, out of a form of resistance to the overproduced, corporate music in the mainstream at the time.

Bondage pants, leather jackets, and torn T-shirts

A red parachute anarchy shirt from1977, designed by Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren.

(

Courtesy of the Skirball Cultural Center

)

Young punk outfits on display.

(

Sarah M Golonka

/

Courtesy of the Skirball Cultural Center

)

Stage diving at a Circle Jerks concert at the Country Club in Reseda in 1982.

(

Ann Summa

/

Courtesy of the Skirball Cultural Center

)

Assorted punk pins.

(

Sarah M Golonka

/

Courtesy of the Skirball Cultural Center

)

Alice Bag of the Bags in Los Angeles in 1978.

(

Melanie Nissen

/

Courtesy of the Skirball Cultural Center

)

Thurston said the punk movement was just as important off the stage as it was on.

“ This is a story of the children it didn't get better for, who created their own world where they fit in and where they found a place for themselves,” she said. “ It was visually different than anything out there at that moment.”

"Outsiders, Outcasts, Rebels + Weirdos: Punk Culture 1976–86" is on display at the Skirball Cultural Center through September. Learn more here.