Last Member Drive of 2025!

Your year-end tax-deductible gift powers our local newsroom. Help raise $1 million in essential funding for LAist by December 31.
$700,442 of $1,000,000 goal
A row of graphics payment types: Visa, MasterCard, Apple Pay and PayPal, and  below a lock with Secure Payment text to the right
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
  • Some Valley residents eligible for up to $500
    A wide shot from above shows scores of homes leveled by fire. Green baseball fields are at the middle right.
    An aerial view shows homes destroyed in the Palisades Fire.

    Topline:

    The L.A. City Council set aside $25,000 on Tuesday to help residents of Council District 6 in the San Fernando Valley who lost income due to the destructive wildfires.

    Where the money comes from: Councilmember Imelda Padilla of District 6 put forward a motion that uses discretionary funds for the relief efforts.

    How and how much? The social justice and economic nonprofit Initiating Change in Our Neighborhoods Community Development Corporation (ICON CDC) will administer the funds to the community. “The grants will be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis and as funds allow,” according to the ICON CDC website.

    The grants are $250 for individuals and $500 for families.

    Who qualifies? Self-employed workers like street vendors, landscapers, housekeepers and others are eligible. The application is open. Council District 6 is composed of Arleta, Lake Balboa, North Hills East, North Hollywood, Panorama City, Sun Valley and Van Nuys.

    Meet a worker affected by the fires: Domestic workers lost a community in Pacific Palisades too

  • FIFA president says fan interest justifies prices

    Topline:

    FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Monday justified the controversially high ticket prices for the 2026 World Cup by announcing that the tournament had already received over 150 million ticket requests during the latest sales window, an unprecedented level of demand.

    How the proceeds will be used: Infantino also said that most of the proceeds from the tournament — which will be held across the U.S., Canada and Mexico next year — will be steered to develop soccer worldwide, stating flatly that "without FIFA, there would be no football in 150 countries in the world." His comments at the World Sports Summit in Dubai were his first public remarks since the most recent application period for tickets opened up in early December — leading to outrage after fans saw the prices being charged.
    The cost for tickets: Prices range from $140 for a handful of initial round games to as much as $2,735 for the U.S. opening match against Paraguay that will be held in Los Angeles next year. Prices for knockout rounds surge even more. FIFA subsequently announced a special tier of $60 tickets for each of the 104 games of the tournament for followers of participating countries' teams, though that will represent only a small fraction of available tickets.

    Read on ... for more about how to apply to buy tickets.

    FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Monday justified the controversially high ticket prices for the 2026 World Cup by announcing that the tournament had already received over 150 million ticket requests during the latest sales window, an unprecedented level of demand.

    Infantino also said that most of the proceeds from the tournament — which will be held across the U.S., Canada and Mexico next year — will be steered to develop soccer worldwide, stating flatly that "without FIFA, there would be no football in 150 countries in the world. "

    His comments at the World Sports Summit in Dubai were his first public remarks since the most recent application period for tickets opened up in early December — leading to outrage after fans saw the prices being charged.

    Those prices range from $140 for a handful of initial round games to as much as $2,735 for the U.S. opening match against Paraguay that will be held in Los Angeles next year.

    Prices for knockout rounds surge even more, with FIFA charging $4,185 for the cheapest ticket for the final that will be held in July in New Jersey — and $8,680 for the most expensive seats.

    FIFA subsequently announced a special tier of $60 tickets for each of the 104 games of the tournament for followers of participating countries' teams, though that will represent only a small fraction of available tickets.

    "In the last few days, you have probably seen there is a lot of debate about ticketing and ticket prices," Infantino said before announcing the tournament had received 150 million ticket requests since the application period for tickets opened on Dec. 11, a number he described as "absolutely crazy."

    "This shows how powerful the World Cup is," he said.

    FIFA has defended its December prices — which are much higher than in previous World Cups and in many cases higher than ticket prices in sales windows earlier this year — by saying that the vast majority of the proceeds from the tournament will support the development of soccer worldwide.

    "There is football because [of] and thanks to these revenues we generate with and from the World Cup, which we reinvest, of course, all over the world," Infantino said in Dubai on Monday.

    The ongoing sales window will remain open until Jan. 13. People can apply to buy tickets for each of the 104 games. The date when they end up submitting their applications will have no bearing on their chances of succeeding, according to FIFA.

    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Sponsored message
  • Big Tech asserts its influence in California
    A room with cabinets of computers with cables. A person, out of focus in the back, is attending to a cabinet.
    An employee works in a Broadcom data center in San Jose.

    Topline:

    A new law orders regulators to study the cost impacts of fast-growing, energy-hungry AI data centers. Lawmakers are expected to revisit tougher rules as utilities, advocates and tech groups battle over who pays for the grid upgrades.

    The backstory: Tools that power artificial intelligence devour energy. But attempts to shield regular Californians from footing the bill in 2025 ended with a law requiring regulators to write a report about the issue by 2027.

    Why it matters: The law mandating the report is the lone survivor of last year’s push to rein in the data-center industry. Its deadline means the findings won’t likely be ready in time for lawmakers to use in 2026. The measure began as a plan to give data centers their own electricity rate, shielding households and small businesses from higher bills.

    Read on ... for how we got here and the prospects for future legislation.

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

    Tools that power artificial intelligence devour energy. But attempts to shield regular Californians from footing the bill in 2025 ended with a law requiring regulators to write a report about the issue by 2027.

    If that sounds pretty watered down, it is. Efforts to regulate the energy usage of data centers — the beating heart of AI — ran headlong into Big Tech, business groups and the governor.

    That’s not surprising given that California is increasingly dependent on big tech for state revenue: A handful of companies pay upwards of $5 billion just on income tax withholding.

    The law mandating the report is the lone survivor of last year’s push to rein in the data-center industry. Its deadline means the findings won’t likely be ready in time for lawmakers to use in 2026. The measure began as a plan to give data centers their own electricity rate, shielding households and small businesses from higher bills.

    It amounts to a “toothless” measure, directing the utility regulator to study an issue it already has the authority to investigate, said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocate.

    Data centers’ enormous electricity demand has pushed them to the center of California’s energy debate, and that’s why lawmakers and consumer advocates say new regulations matter.

    For instance, the sheer amount of energy requested by data centers in California is prompting questions about costly grid upgrades even as speculative projects and fast-shifting AI loads make long-term planning uncertain. Developers have requested 18.7 gigawatts of service capacity for data centers, more than enough to serve every household in the state, according to the California Energy Commission.

    But the report could help shape future debates as lawmakers revisit tougher rules and the CPUC considers new policies on what data centers pay for power — a discussion gaining urgency as scrutiny of their rising electricity costs grows, he said.

    “It could be that the report helps the Legislature to understand the magnitude of the problem and potential solutions,” Freedman said. “It could also inform the CPUC’s own review of the reasonableness of rates for data center customers, which they are likely to investigate.”

    State Sen. Steve Padilla, a Democrat from Chula Vista, says that the final version of his law “was not the one we would have preferred,” agreeing that it may seem “obvious” the CPUC can study data center cost impacts. The measure could help frame future debates and at least “says unequivocally that the CPUC has the authority to study these impacts” as demand from data centers accelerates, Padilla added.

    Data centers "consume huge amounts of energy, huge amounts of resources, and at least in the near future, we're not going to see that change,” he said.

    Earlier drafts of Padilla’s measure went further, requiring data centers to install large batteries to support the grid during peak demand and pushing utilities to supply them with 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030 — years ahead of the state’s own mandate. Those provisions were ultimately stripped out.

    How California’s first push to regulate data centers slipped away

    California’s bid to bring more oversight to data centers unraveled earlier this year under industry pressure, ending with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto of a bill requiring operators to report their water use. Concerns over the bills reflected fears that data-center developers could shift projects to other states and take valuable jobs with them.

    A September Stanford report on powering California data centers said the state risks losing property-tax revenue, union construction jobs and “valuable AI talent” if data-center construction moves out of state.

    The idea that increased regulation could lead to businesses or dollars in some form leaving California is an argument that has been brought up across industries for decades. It often does not hold up to more careful or long-term scrutiny.

    In the face of this opposition, two key proposals stalled in the Legislature’s procedural churn. Early in the session, Padilla put a separate clean-power incentives proposal for data centers on hold until 2026. Later in the year, an Assembly bill requiring data centers to disclose their electricity use was placed in the Senate’s suspense file — where appropriations committees often quietly halt measures.

    Newsom, who has often spoken of California’s AI dominance, echoed the industry’s competitiveness worries in his veto message of the water-use reporting requirement. The governor said he was reluctant to impose requirements on data centers, “without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology.”

    Despite last year’s defeats, some lawmakers say they will attempt to tackle the issue again.

    Padilla plans to try again with a bill that would add new rules on who pays for data centers’ long-term grid costs in California, while Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan — a Democrat from San Ramon — will revisit her electricity-disclosure bill.

    Big Tech warns of job losses but one advocate sees an opening

    After blocking most measures — and watering down the lone energy-costs bill — Big Tech groups say they’ll revive arguments that new efforts to regulate data centers could cost California jobs.

    At a CalMatters event in November, Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Ahmad Thomas argued that California must compete to attract investments like the $40 billion data-center project Texas secured with  Google. Any policy making deals like that tougher would provoke conflict, he added.

    “When we get to the details of what our regulatory regime looks like versus other states, or how we can make California more competitive ... that's where sometimes we struggle to find that happy medium,” he said.

    Despite having more regulations than some states, California continues to toggle between the 4th and 5th largest economy in the world and has for some time, suggesting that the Golden State is very competitive.

    Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, another industry lobbying group, said new requirements on data centers should apply to all other large electricity users.

    “To single out one industry is not something that we think would set a helpful precedent, ” Diorio said. “We've been very consistent with that throughout the country.”

    Critics say job loss fears are overblown, noting California built its AI sector without the massive hyperscale facilities that typically gravitate to states with ample, cheaper land and streamlined permitting.

    Data-center locations — driven by energy prices, land and local rules — have little to do with where AI researchers live, said Shaolei Ren, an AI researcher at UC Riverside.

    “These two things are sort of separate, they’re decoupled,” he said.

    Freedman, of TURN, said lawmakers may have a bargaining chip: If developers cared about cheaper power, they wouldn’t be proposing facilities in a state with high electric rates. That means speed and certainty may be the priority, giving lawmakers the space to potentially offer quicker approvals in exchange for developers covering more grid costs.

    “There's so much money in this business that the energy bills — even though large — are kind of like rounding errors for these guys,” Freedman said. “If that's true, then maybe they shouldn't care about having to pay a little bit more to ensure that costs aren't being shifted to other customers.”

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

  • Steps to mitigate disturbing chatbot interactions

    Topline:

    Psychologists and online safety advocates say parents are right to be worried. Extended chatbot interactions may affect kids' social development and mental health, they say. And the technology is changing so fast that few safeguards are in place.

    Why it matters: Generative AI chatbots are a growing part of life for American teens. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of adolescents are using chatbots, with 3 in 10 saying they use them daily.

    Be aware of the risks: A new report from the online safety company, Aura, shows that 42% of adolescents using AI chatbots use them for companionship. Aura gathered data from the daily device use of 3,000 teens as well as surveys of families.

    Read on... for more tips from experts.

    It wasn't until a couple of years ago that Keri Rodrigues began to worry about how her kids might be using chatbots. She learned her youngest son was interacting with the chatbot in his Bible app — he was asking it some deep moral questions, about sin for instance.

    That's the kind of conversation that she had hoped her son would have with her and not a computer. "Not everything in life is black and white," she says. "There are grays. And it's my job as his mom to help him navigate that and walk through it, right?"

    Rodrigues has also been hearing from parents across the country who are concerned about AI chatbots' influence on their children. She is the president of the National Parents Union, which advocates for children and families. Many parents, she says, are watching chatbots claim to be their kids' best friends, encouraging children to tell them everything.

    Psychologists and online safety advocates say parents are right to be worried. Extended chatbot interactions may affect kids' social development and mental health, they say. And the technology is changing so fast that few safeguards are in place.

    The impacts can be serious. According to their parents' testimonies at a recent Senate hearing, two teens died by suicide after prolonged interactions with chatbots that encouraged their suicide plans.

    If you or someone you know may be considering suicide or be in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

    But generative AI chatbots are a growing part of life for American teens. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of adolescents are using chatbots, with 3 in 10 saying they use them daily.

    "It's a very new technology," says Dr. Jason Nagata, a pediatrician and researcher of adolescent digital media use at the University of California San Francisco. "It's ever-changing and there's not really best practices for youth yet. So, I think there are more opportunities now for risks because we're still kind of guinea pigs in the whole process."


    And teenagers are particularly vulnerable to the risks of chatbots, he adds, because adolescence is a time of rapid brain development, which is shaped by experiences. "It is a period when teens are more vulnerable to lots of different exposures, whether it's peers or computers."

    But parents can minimize those risks, say pediatricians and psychologists. Here are some ways to help teens navigate the technology safely.

    1. Be aware of the risks

    A new report from the online safety company, Aura, shows that 42% of adolescents using AI chatbots use them for companionship. Aura gathered data from the daily device use of 3,000 teens as well as surveys of families.

    That includes some disturbing conversations involving violence and sex, says psychologist Scott Kollins, chief medical officer at Aura, who leads the company's research on teen interactions with generative AI.

    "It is role play that is [an] interaction about harming somebody else, physically hurting them, torturing them," he says.

    He says it's normal for kids to be curious about sex, but learning about sexual interactions from a chatbot instead of a trusted adult is problematic.

    And chatbots are designed to agree with users, says pediatrician Nagata. So if your child starts a query about sex or violence, "the default of the AI is to engage with it and to reinforce it."

    He says spending a lot of time with chatbots — having extended conversations — also prevents teenagers from learning important social skills, like empathy, reading body language and negotiating differences.

    "When you're only or exclusively interacting with computers who are agreeing with you, then you don't get to develop those skills," he says.

    And there are mental health risks. According to a recent study by researchers at the nonprofit research organization RAND, Harvard and Brown universities, 1 in 8 adolescents and young adults use chatbots for mental health advice.

    But there have been numerous reports of individuals experiencing delusions, or what's being referred to as AI psychosis, after prolonged interactions with chatbots. This, as well as the concern over risks of suicide, has led psychologists to warn that AI chatbots pose serious risks to the mental health and safety of teens as well as vulnerable adults.

    "We see that when people interact with [chatbots] over long periods of time, that things start to degrade, that the chatbots do things that they're not intended to do," says psychologist Ursula Whiteside, CEO of a mental health nonprofit called Now Matters Now. For example, she says, chatbots "give advice about lethal means, things that it's not supposed to do but does happen over time with repeated queries."

    2. Stay engaged with kids' online lives 

    Keep an open dialogue going with your child, says Nagata.

    "Parents don't need to be AI experts," he says. "They just need to be curious about their children's lives and ask them about what kind of technology they're using and why."

    And have those conversations early and often, says psychologist Kollins of Aura.

    "We need to have frequent and candid but nonjudgmental conversations with our kids about what this content looks like," says Kollins, who's also a father to two teenagers. "And we're going to have to continue to do that."

    He often asks his teens about what platforms they are on. When he hears about new chatbots through his own research at Aura, he also asks his kids if they have heard of those or used them.

    "Don't blame the child for expressing or taking advantage of something that's out there to satisfy their natural curiosity and exploration," he says.

    And make sure to keep the conversations open-ended, says Nagata: "I do think that that allows for your teenager or child to open up about problems that they've encountered."

    3. Develop digital literacy 

    It's also important to talk to kids about the benefits and pitfalls of generative AI. And if parents don't understand all the risks and benefits, parents and kids can research that together, suggests psychologist Jacqueline Nesi at Brown University, who was involved in the American Psychological Association's recent health advisory on AI and adolescent health.

    "A certain amount of digital literacy and literacy does need to happen at home," she says.

    It's important for parents and teens to understand that while chatbots can help with research, they also make errors, says Nagata. And it is important for users to be skeptical and fact-check.

    "Part of this education process for children is to help them to understand that this is not the final say," explains Nagata. "You yourself can process this information and try to assess, what's real or not. And if you're not sure, then try to verify with other people or other sources."

    4. Parental controls only work if kids set up their own accounts

    If a child is using AI chatbots, it may be better for them to set up their own account on the platforms, says Nesi, instead of using chatbots anonymously.

    "Many of the more popular platforms now have parental controls in place," she says. "But in order for those parental controls to be in effect, a child does need to have their own account."

    But be aware, there are dozens of different AI chatbots that kids could be using. "We identified 88 different AI platforms that kids were interacting with," says Kollins.

    This underscores the importance of having an open dialogue with your child to stay aware of what they're using.

    5. Set time limits

    Nagata also advises setting boundaries around when kids use digital technology, especially at nighttime.

    "One potential aspect of generative AI that can also lead to mental health and physical health impacts are [when] kids are chatting all night long and it's really disrupting their sleep," says Nagata. "Because they're very personalized conversations, they're very engaging. Kids are more likely to continue to engage and have more and more use."

    And if a child is veering toward overuse and misuse of generative AI, Nagata recommends that parents set time limits or limit certain kinds of content on chatbots.

    6. Seek help for more vulnerable teens 

    Kids who are already struggling with their mental health or social skills are more likely to be vulnerable to the risks of chatbots, says Nesi.

    "So if they're already lonely, if they're already isolated, then I think there's a bigger risk that maybe a chatbot could then exacerbate those issues," she says.

    And it's also important to keep an eye on potential warning signs of poor mental health, she notes.

    Those warning signs involve sudden and persistent changes in mood, isolation or changes in how engaged they are at school.

    "Parents should be as much as possible trying to pay attention to the whole picture of the child," says Nesi. "How are they doing in school? How are they doing with friends? How are they doing at home if they are starting to withdraw?"

    If a teen is withdrawing from friends and family and restricting their social interactions to just the chatbot, that too is a warning sign, she says. "Are they going to the chatbot instead of a friend or instead of a therapist or instead of responsible adults about serious issues?

    Also look for signs of dependence or addiction to a chatbot, she adds. "Are they having difficulty controlling how much they are using a chatbot? Like, is it starting to feel like it's controlling them? They kind of can't stop," she says.

    And if they see those signs, parents should reach out to a professional for help, says Nesi.

    "Speaking to a child's pediatrician is always a good first step," she says. "But in most cases, getting a mental health professional involved is probably going to make sense."

    7. The government has a role to play

    But, she acknowledges that the job of keeping children and teens safe from this technology shouldn't just fall upon parents.

    "There's a responsibility, you know, from lawmakers, from the companies themselves to make these products safe for teens."

    Lawmakers in Congress recently introduced bipartisan legislation to ban tech companies from offering companion apps for minors and to hold companies accountable for making available to minors companion apps that produce or solicit sexual content.

    If you or someone you know may be considering suicide or be in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • 10 bills that sparked hours of debate this year
    A top view looking down of three people talking among each other next to a wooden staircase with carpet. Each floor shows two different tile patterns.
    People chat together at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Sept. 12, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters

    Topline:

    California lawmakers spend just a few minutes discussing in public the hundreds of bills they introduce. But these 10 measures had hours of intense debate in 2025.

    Why it matters: A handful of controversial proposals broke through the usual rushed process, drawing hours of testimony and intense public lobbying from some of the state’s most powerful organizations that spend millions of dollars to get their way, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, which tracks every word spoken in the Legislature.

    The backstory: Those long hours are not the norm, compared to the overall 2025 average, which showed lawmakers and advocates spent just 32 minutes publicly talking about each of the 1,657 bills that were discussed in at least one hearing.

    Read on ... for details about the 10 bills generating debate.

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

    Most bills in the California Legislature are barely talked about in public before lawmakers take action, often after secret negotiations with lobbyists.

    But a handful of controversial proposals broke through the usual rushed process, drawing hours of testimony and intense public lobbying from some of the state’s most powerful organizations that spend millions of dollars to get their way, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, which tracks every word spoken in the Legislature.

    That’s compared to the overall 2025 average, which showed lawmakers and advocates spent just 32 minutes publicly talking about each of the 1,657 bills that were discussed in at least one hearing.

    These were the 10 most debated bills of the 2025 regular legislative session, according to Digital Democracy.

    (Note: Advocacy groups listed below may have changed their positions as the bills were amended.)

    Divide over antisemitism bill

    Bill: Assembly Bill 715

    Lead author: Democratic assemblymembers Dawn Addis of San Luis Obispo and Rick Zbur of Los Angeles.

    Time discussed: 15 hours

    Approximate number of speakers: 486

    Why it was a talker: California’s Jewish lawmakers made countering antisemitism in schools their top priority this year, but opposing the bill was a coalition of education groups, unions, civil rights advocates and Muslim community organizations who feared censorship of pro-Palestinian voices and infringement on academic freedom. The groups turned out in droves to testify.

    Number of groups in support: At least 68, including the Jewish Community Action, the Los Angeles County Business Federation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 92, including the California Federation of Teachers, the California Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the California School Boards Association.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Local governments balk at transit-oriented housing

    Bill: Senate Bill 79

    Lead author: Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco

    Time discussed: 6 hours, 40 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 198

    Why it was a talker: Local governments balked at a new state mandate allowing developers to build midrise apartment buildings within walking distance of many major train, light-rail, subway and high-frequency rapid bus stations — even if local zoning restrictions would otherwise ban such dense development.

    Number of groups in support: At least 49, including pro home-building groups and the California Apartment Association.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 76, including, at one point, the building trades unions, the California Association of Realtors and dozens of municipalities.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Charter schools oppose new restrictions

    Bill: Assembly Bill 84

    Lead authors: Democratic assemblymembers Robert Garcia of Rancho Cucamonga and Al Muratsuchi of Torrance.

    Time discussed: 6 hours, 32 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 491

    Why it was a talker: This was the latest legislative effort by California’s powerful teachers unions and their allies to add restrictions and oversight to charter schools. Homeschool families and charter schools opposed the measure, introduced in response to high-profile charter school fraud scandals, saying it would strip millions of dollars in state funding from their programs. The bill added auditing requirements and new fees as well as a proposed new Office of Inspector General inside the Department of Education.

    Number of groups in support: At least six, almost all influential unions.

    Number of groups opposed: More than 200, many of them charter schools or home school groups.

    Status: Failed in the Senate.

    Uproar over teen sexual solicitation

    Bill: Assembly Bill 379

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen of Elk Grove

    Time discussed: 5 hours, 28 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 149

    Why it was a talker: This bill, originally written by Democratic Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, a former state prosecutor, sought to increase penalties for soliciting teen sex. But the legislation sparked difficult discussions between progressive and moderate members of the Democratic caucus about how hard to crack down on those accused of soliciting sex from minors, based on whether the victims were younger or older teenagers.

    Number of groups in support: At least 48, including law enforcement unions and some Native American tribes.  

    Number of groups opposed: At least 25, including ACLU and various advocates for progressive criminal justice reforms.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Lots to say about ICE agent masks

    Masked border patrol agents walk down a sidewalk, some holding rifles.
    U.S. Border Patrol agents march to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building after a show of force outside the Japanese American National Museum, where Gov. Newsom was holding a redistricting press conference in Los Angeles on Aug. 14, 2025.
    (
    Carlin Stiehl
    /
    Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
    )

    Bill: Senate Bill 627 

    Lead authors: Democratic Sen. Jessie Arreguín of Berkeley and three other senators

    Time discussed: 5 hours

    Approximate number of speakers: 100

    Why it was a talker: Members of California’s Democratic legislative supermajority aren’t shy about speaking their minds on President Donald Trump and his controversial immigration policies, so it’s no surprise that there was a lot of discussion over California’s first-in-the nation measure to prohibit federal immigration officers and local police from wearing masks in California.

    Number of groups in support: At least 45, including non-police unions, public defenders, the ACLU and immigrant rights groups.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 16, almost all of them police unions.

    Status: Signed into law

    Democrats pitch gerrymander to counter Texas

    Bill: Assembly Bill 604

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry of Davis and Sen. Lena Gonzalez of Long Beach

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 58 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 76

    Why it was a talker: There were plenty of heated discussions after California Democrats put forward their own gerrymandering plan after Trump pressured Texas to change its congressional maps to make new Republican districts.

    Number of groups in support: At least 54, including labor unions and progressive groups.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 19, including California Common Cause, Govern for California and conservative groups.

    Status: Signed into law, approved by voters

    California Governor Gavin Newsom, a man with light skin tone wearing a white buttoned down shirt, speaks into a microphone in front of a large American flag designed background with text that reads "Yes on 50."
    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally in support of a “Yes” vote on Proposition 50, a congressional redistricting measure in the Nov. 4th special election, at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles on Nov. 1, 2025.
    (
    David Swanson
    /
    Reuters
    )

    Energy bill gets lengthy debate

    Bill: Senate Bill 254

    Lead authors: Democratic Sen. Josh Becker of Menlo Park and two other lawmakers

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 55 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 119

    Why it was a talker: This energy bill created a new public financing system for electric transmission projects and extended a controversial program that shields utilities from some wildfire liability costs, but critics warned it could ultimately drive consumer bills higher. It was part of a package of energy and climate measures the Legislature passed this year.

    Number of groups in support: At least 55, including trades unions, the California Democratic Party, the California Chamber of Commerce, environmental groups and the California Municipal Utilities Association.

    Number of groups opposed: At least seven, including the California Farm Bureau Federation, Rural County Representatives of California and the California State Association of Counties.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Fees for veterans’ benefits draws testimony

    Bill: Senate Bill 694

    Lead author: Democratic Sens. Bob Archuleta of Norwalk and Sabrina Cervantes of Riverside

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 39 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 99

    Why it was a talker: For years, veterans advocates have wanted a state law preventing companies from charging exorbitant fees to help veterans file federal disability benefits claims, something they can do for free through the government and certain veterans’ organizations. But the Legislature has repeatedly balked, as companies claim they provide an important service to help veterans get the benefits they need.

    Number of groups in support: At least 25, including the California State Association of Counties and the American Legion.

    Number of groups opposed: At least nine, including Veterans Guardian, one of the companies that files claims.

    Status: The bill did not pass the Senate, although lawmakers announced they had a deal on the legislation and would vote on it in January.

    Should AT&T opt out of landlines?

    Bill: Assembly Bill 470

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Tina McKinnor of Inglewood

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 13 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 209

    Why it was a talker: AT&T has spent millions in lobbying as it tried unsuccessfully to bow out of its legal requirement to provide copper landlines in much of the state. Rural communities and others pushed back, leading to some of the lengthiest discussions in the Legislature this year.

    Number of groups in support: At least 145, including AT&T, some tribes and other groups aligned with the telecommunications company.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 96, including rural counties, some unions and AARP.

    Status: Failed in the Senate

    Banning junk food at schools causes a stir

    Bill: Assembly Bill 1264

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel of Encino

    Time discussed: 3 hours, 49 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 103

    Why it was a talker: There were lots of strong opinions over this bill to ban schools from serving harmful “ultraprocessed foods” to students.

    Number of groups in support: At least 59, including nurses and school unions, the California Medical Association and some school districts.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 46, including agricultural associations, the American Beverage Association and other business trade groups.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Digital Democracy’s Foaad Khosmood, Forbes professor of computer engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Digital Democracy’s Thomas Gerrity contributed to this story.

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