The Brief

As President Joe Biden today bowed to the growing chorus of elected Democrats and Democratic voters calling for him to exit the 2024 race, everyone is taking another good hard look at Kamala Harris.

“Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala Harris to be the nominee of our party this year, ” Biden wrote in a social media post, calling his selection of Harris to be his vice president “the best decision I’ve made.”

Vice presidents rarely get much attention. What attention Harris has gotten on the job hasn’t been particularly positive. Counter to the reputation she cultivated early on in her career as a pragmatic politician and sharp-minded prosecutor, public opinion on Harris soured in the summer of 2021 and has mostly stayed sour.

That was in part thanks to the White House saddling her with a series of unenviable and intractable tasks. Beyond that her role, like that of most vice presidents, has been high on profile, but low on actual responsibility. It’s a job perhaps best described by fictional Veep Selina Meyer as the political equivalent of being “declawed, defanged, neutered, ball-gagged, and sealed in an abandoned coal mine.”

Nor was Harris faring much better with voters in her home state. Last year 59% of California voters in a Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll said they would not welcome her on the top of the ticket.

But now that Harris is being considered as the most likely substitute for Biden, more voters seem to be warming to her. A fresh Washington Post poll found that the vast majority of Democratic voters nationwide would be “satisfied” with Harris at the top of the ticket. The same poll found her narrowly beating Trump in a head-to-head election among registered voters.

And so the nation is catching itself back up to speed on all things Harris — and that means catching up on a life of accomplishment and controversy here. More than any other vice president in generations, Kamala Harris’ biography is singularly Californian.

Born in Oakland, bussed to school in Berkeley, tested by San Francisco’s cutthroat municipal politics and propelled onto the national stage as the state’s top law enforcement officer and then its first female senator of color, Harris’ approach to politics and policymaking were honed here.

Now that voters are reconsidering whether Harris has what it takes to be president of the United States — and as Donald Trump and JD Vance train their oppo-machine upon her — we’re resurrecting this look at her California years and career. Here are nine ways that California shaped Kamala Harris, and that Harris shaped California.

A child of Berkeley

In a state full of transplants, Harris is a lifelong Californian.

She was was born in 1964 in Oakland — the hospital a little over a mile from the city hall where, more than half a century later, she would announce her short-lived 2020 bid for the presidency. Born to immigrant parents who met while getting their PhDs and protesting for civil rights at UC Berkeley, she spent her childhood in Berkeley. Harris’ father, Donald Harris, is from Jamaica and her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, is from India. The couple split when Harris was 7, and Harris and her sister Maya were raised mostly by her mother, who died in 2009.

In the first Democratic presidential debate in 2019, Harris famously skewered Joe Biden — then her campaign rival — for his past opposition to federally mandated busing to desegregate public schools. For Harris, she said, the issue was “personal.”

Specifically, Harris rode the “red rooster” from Berkeley’s working-class flatlands to Thousand Oaks Elementary School at the base of the affluent north Berkeley hills. This was 1969, just one year after Berkeley Unified introduced its “two-way” busing program across its elementary schools. Berkeley being Berkeley, unlike local integration plans across the country, the city had undertaken this one on its own accord.

After the debate dust-up, Harris clarified that she does not support federally mandated busing, a policy stance not so dissimilar from the one she needled Biden over.

Traversing back and forth between different strata of society — black, white and Asian; well-off and working-class — is a familiar trope in Harris’ biography.

“It wasn’t a homogenous life,” said Debbie Mesloh, a friend who has also worked for Harris as a communication director and a consultant. “She’s a very resourceful person in that she can move in between these worlds.”

Vice President Kamala Harris graduated from Howard University in 1986. Her graduating year photo is in the bottom row, second from right.

Harris spent her teenage years in Montreal, moving there with her sister and mother when Gopalan accepted a university research position there. She earned a political science and economics degree at Howard University in Washington D.C. but returned to California to get her law degree in 1989 at the University of California, Hastings in San Francisco.

Until her most recent move to Washington, she called California home.

Fresh out of law school, she joined the Alameda County district attorney’s office in 1990, serving there eight years before crossing the bay to San Francisco. In 2003, she unexpectedly won election as San Francisco district attorney, where she served two terms before her narrow election as state attorney general in 2010. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016.

The influence of king/queen-maker Willie Brown

Former state Assembly Speaker and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown has helped accelerate many a successful political career in California (including that of Gov. Gavin Newsom). Harris got a boost from Brown, too.

In March 1994, San Francisco Chronicle’s legendary columnist Herb Caen described the scene at Brown’s surprise 60th birthday party. Clint Eastwood was there, wrote Caen, and he “spilled champagne on the Speaker’s new steady, Kamala Harris.” Brown had a reputation for dating much younger women. In his column, Caen described Harris, then a deputy district attorney of Alameda County, as “something new in Willie’s love life. She’s a woman, not a girl.”

The relationship ended after two years, but her connection to Brown, three decades her senior, did have an outsized effect on her career.

Willie Brown and Kamala Harris in 1994.

“I would think it’s fair to say that most of the people in San Francisco met her through Willie,” John Burton, who used to be president pro tem of the state Senate, former chair of the California Democratic Party and a San Francisco political powerhouse in his own right, told Politico.

The speaker gave Harris a couple plum positions on two state regulatory boards — the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission. “If you were asked to be on a board that regulated medical care, would you say no?” Harris told SFWeekly a few years later.

Harris’ connection to Brown also helped her make connections across San Francisco high-society and California political elite. In 1996, a year after Brown became mayor and Harris broke off the relationship, she joined the board of trustees at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

When Harris ran for San Francisco district attorney nearly a decade later, her first contribution came from Elaine McKeon, chair of the museum’s board. More — much more — poured in from donors with last names like Fisher, Getty, Buell, Haas and other noble houses of the Bay Area.

But from the beginning of her political career, Harris has seen her connection with Brown as a liability — a cudgel that opponents can use against her and, at worst, a tired, sexist trope used to question the legitimacy of her ascendant career. In the first run to be San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris deliberately hired a campaign consultant known for working with clients outside the Brown political machine. During that same campaign, she described her past relationship with the former speaker and mayor as “an albatross hanging around my neck.”

As for Brown, he recently told a reporter, regretfully, that he and Harris are no longer in touch.

A lack of clarity

You saw it in the presidential race. You’ve seen it in her as vice president. As the New York Times once put it: “the content of her message remains a work in progress.” We saw it before in California.

While running the California Department of Justice, Harris was often loath to wade into the political battles taking place just a few blocks away in the state Legislature.

There was the bill that would have required her office to investigate police shootings. She did not take a formal position (though she did tell a reporter it would be bad policy). The bill died.

There was the proposal to force police departments to gather data on the ethnicity and race of the civilians they stop. Harris also declined to take a position. It passed anyway.

And on the biggest criminal justice overhaul in California in a generation, Harris also kept mum.

Prompted by a judicial decree that the state had to dramatically cut the population of its overcrowded prison system, “realignment” was a package of state policies passed in 2011 that shifted tens of thousands of inmates out of state custody and into county jails or onto the rolls of local probation systems.

Despite in many ways reflecting the lessons described in her book “Smart on Crime,” which argued that non-violent criminals can be redirected into less punitive systems without jeopardizing public safety, Harris, the state’s top law enforcement officer, was silent on the policy.

That earned a rebuke from the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, which wrote in its endorsement of her 2016 Senate candidacy that Harris “has been too cautious and unwilling to stake out a position on controversial issues, even when her voice would have been valuable to the debate.”

What some critics call prevarication or flip-floppery, her supporters call pragmatism. Those are just two ways of describing the same quality, said Corey Cook, a political scientist and provost at St. Mary’s College, and a longtime observer of San Francisco politics.

“She’s not an ideologue,” he said, meaning rather than stake out the boldest, ideologically-coherent agenda, she tends to focus on individual fixes to specific problems. Hence the “3am agenda” of her presidential campaign, a collection of policy changes designed to address the problems that keep the average voter up at night.

“The idea that she would have consistent positions on issues informed by ideology isn’t who she is,” said Cook. Harris may appear to pick her battles, he said, because for her “the only lasting solutions are going to be the ones that are able to sustain a majority coalition of support.”

Making a mark: sex crimes, domestic violence, child abuse

Harris has never shied away from the “tough on crime” label when it comes to a certain class of criminals: domestic violence perpetrators, child abusers and sex traffickers.

After nearly a decade in Alameda County and a short stint as a deputy district attorney in San Francisco (she left, calling the leadership there “dysfunctional”), in 2000, Harris joined the San Francisco city attorney’s office under Louise Renne.

Renne said she was looking for someone to head the office’s Child and Family Service unit, which investigates child abuse cases. This was not considered a prestigious post. Prosecutors inside the unit had taken to calling it “kiddie law.”

Renne thought Harris, who had focused on child abuse and sexual exploitation cases in Alameda County, would be a good fit.

That instinct was confirmed on Harris’ first day on the job, Renne said, when a number of children who had been separated from their parents were formally adopted into new families.

“She comes into my office and says ‘Come on, Louise, we’ve got to go over to court. There are going to be adoptions today,’ and she had all these teddy bears,” Renne recalled. “She knew the occasion. She knew it was an important one and it should be celebrated.”

Harris’ focus on the victims of abuse and exploitation continued after she was elected as San Francisco’s District Attorney.

“I don’t know what the term ‘teenage prostitute’ means. I have never met a ‘teenage prostitute.’ I have met exploited kids,” Mesloh, then Harris’ communications director, recalls her boss saying at her first all-staff meeting. Harris then ordered her prosecutors not to use the term in court. A year later, Harris sponsored a bill putting the crime of human trafficking into the state criminal code.

Some Democrats say Harris’ prior life as a prosecutor with a focus on sex crimes would be a key advantage in a potential general election contest against Trump, who has been found liable in a civil case for sexual assault and recently became the first former president to be convicted of a felony. In that case, the 34 counts were related to the falsifying of business records in connection to an alleged sexual encounter with a pornographic film actress.

But using the full force of the law to penalize pimps, traffickers and other abusers has earned Harris some criticism from civil libertarians and from advocates for sex workers.

In one of her final acts as California’s attorney general, Harris had the CEO of Backpage.com, Carl Ferrer, arrested on pimping charges. Backpage was an online classifieds site known for its “adult services” section, which prosecutors had long warned served as a marketplace for sex traffickers.

The arrest was based on a contentious legal argument that pit anti-trafficking fervor against the First Amendment. Since Backpage was merely a platform for ads, its lawyers argued, it was protected by the same law that protects Google from being held liable for illicit websites listed in its search results. A superior court judge agreed and threw out the case, though an amended charge, pursued by Harris’ successor, then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, led Ferrer to plead guilty to money laundering and conspiracy to facilitate prostitution and to the shuttering of the site.

The Harris mantra: ‘Smart on Crime’

One of the reasons Harris became known as a rising-star District Attorney was her focus on prevention, which she explained in her book, Smart on Crime, written in 2009, the year before she ran for attorney general.

“Public health practitioners know that the most beneficial use of resources is to prevent an outbreak, not to treat it,” Harris wrote. “Instead of just reacting to a crime every time it is committed, we have to step back and figure out how to disrupt the routes of infection.”

Kamala Harris as San Francisco District Attorney on June 18, 2004.

(

Marcio Jose Sanchez

/

AP Photo

)

Harris’ “Back on Track” program, considered the most successful implementation of this idea, redirected first-time, non-violent drug offenders into supervised education, job training courses, therapy sessions and life skills classes. It was a modest program, but a novel one compared to what most other big city law enforcement officers were doing in 2005.

“In that time period, I think that she was a radical,” said Mesloh. The program has since been emulated by cities around the country. When Harris became attorney general, she launched a similar pilot program for Los Angeles County.

Harris’ focus on prevention produced some of her key accomplishments as district attorney. But in the context of the 2020 presidential primary, some of those same accomplishments struck many critics on the left as overly punitive.

The year after launching Back on Track, Harris introduced an anti-truancy initiative. Based on a statistical correlation that chronic class skippers are more likely to be both perpetrators and victims of homicide, Harris’ office began threatening the parents of persistently absent students with prosecution.

Harris has been quick to point out that the “stick” in this carrot and stick approach only came out after a series of escalating interventions, including mandatory meetings with school staff and social workers. No one went to jail under the program, though a handful of parents were fined. Within a few years, city truancy rates fell by a third and Harris took credit.

In 2010 her office sponsored a bill to take the program statewide. In the hands of other district attorneys, the statute was used in at least a handful of cases to put parents behind bars. Critics have said that the policy has been disproportionately wielded against poor parents of color.

In a 2019 interview, Harris said she regretted any “unintended consequences” of the state law.

Harris has (almost) always opposed capital punishment

Her opposition to the death penalty has been one of the most controversial stands in her career, but it’s also an example for those who criticize her lack of consistency.

On April 10, 2004, three months after her inauguration as San Francisco’s new district attorney, 29-year-old police officer Isaac Espinoza was gunned down by a 21-year-old with an AK-47. Three days later, Harris made good on a campaign promise and vowed not to seek the death penalty for the shooter. David Hill was later convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

The decision engendered a predictably fierce backlash from the police union and rebukes from politicians. “This is not only the definition of tragedy,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at Espinoza’s funeral, “it’s the special circumstance called for by the death penalty law.” The assembled officers cheered while Harris remained seated.

Some of Harris’ critics say she has wavered in tougher political circumstances.

In 2014, when a federal court judge ruled that California’s administration of the death penalty was unconstitutional, Harris appealed the decision as state attorney general, arguing that it was “not supported by the law.”

Harris later said that she was obligated to defend capital punishment as the legal representative of the state. Many have pointed out that she was happy not to defend a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that voters passed in Proposition 8 when it was challenged a year earlier. Harris’ response: She was merely reflecting the position of her client, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration.

She also explained that the judge’s ruling, which held that the long delays between sentencing and execution in California amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment,” could be used to justify speeding up the state’s system of capital punishment.

Prosecutorial overreach controversies

Both as district attorney and as state attorney general, Harris led offices that criminal justice advocates say was overly aggressive in pursuing convictions and lacked transparency in a way that belies Harris’ brand as a “progressive prosecutor.”

In March 2010, just as Harris was campaigning to become California’s attorney general, San Francisco authorities shut down a police department crime lab in the city’s Hunters Point naval yard. A technician named Deborah Madden was accused of skimming drugs, raising broader questions about the lab’s ability to appropriately handle evidence in criminal cases. (Madden later pleaded guilty).

Harris immediately dismissed 20 drug cases, but the number eventually grew to over 1,500 after documents showed that prosecutors within Harris’ office had known about Madden’s potential unreliability months before the lab was closed, but had neglected to tell defense attorneys.

A superior court judge later excoriated Harris’ office, writing that the violations infringed on the defendants’ constitutional rights.

Afterward, Harris formed a unit to handle the sharing of evidence with criminal defense attorneys. She has also said that she did not know about the problems at the crime lab until after the scandal blew up.

But that hasn’t done much to assuage the concerns of critics who say Harris had a tendency toward prosecutorial overreach, which continued once Harris became the state’s attorney general.

Kamala Harris is sworn in as California’s attorney general on Jan. 6, 2011.

(

Office of the Attorney General of California

)

In 2015, for example, lawyers for an inmate convicted of murder attempted to have the case thrown out after new evidence suggested that Riverside County prosecutors lied on the stand during the initial trial. Harris’ office, representing the state prison system, resisted, only backing down after footage of one of her deputies being eviscerated by three federal judges went viral.

A spokesperson for her since-abandoned presidential campaign said Harris ordered her office to drop the challenge as soon as “she became aware” of the case.

Critics point to other examples. There was her office’s decision to defend a molestation conviction that local prosecutors had secured with a false confession.

Asked about that case, the spokesperson said that it was “long-standing practice” for prosecutors within the Californian Department of Justice to file legal motions without the express approval of the Attorney General, implying that, again, Harris was not aware that her office was making the argument. But in this case, the spokesperson added, state prosecutors believed “the original case…was valid and that the victim in the case deserved justice.”

Another example: her office’s refusal to take over a 2011 Seal Beach mass shooting case after a judge recused the entire Orange County District Attorney’s office for widespread prosecutorial misconduct. Harris defended her decision: “it was being handled at the local level.”

Such a track record is to be expected of any prosecutor, said Sally Lieber, who worked with Harris on human trafficking legislation while representing Mountain View in the state Assembly.

“It is an adversarial system and so she was filling a particular role, but I think that she was able to do it in a very sophisticated, smart and responsive way,” she said.

As California’s AG: Playing hardball

Harris’ biggest accomplishment while California’s attorney general was to secure a financial settlement with some of the country’s largest banks accused of illegally foreclosing on homeowners.

In September 2011, Harris pulled out of ongoing negotiations between attorneys general from nearly every US state and the five banks, calling the proposed deal of $2-to-$4 billion “crumbs on the table.”

Harris was not the first attorney general to walk away, but the departure of the country’s largest state seemed to have its intended effect.

A few months later, with California back in the mix, a new deal was struck. This time, California got $20.2 billion in debt reductions and direct financial assistance.

Still, some consumer groups and outside experts were critical of the deal, arguing that the banks would have been forced to write off much of that bad debt eventually. “All sizzle, no steak,” is how Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin put it.

But Harris’ willingness to play hardball did result in a bigger settlement, said Rob McKenna, former Washington attorney general who was part of the negotiations.

“It’s possible for states to overstate the impact they had on the final settlement. The former New York Attorney General (Eric Schneiderman) would sometimes make claims about the settlement and improvements he had obtained,” he said. “But it’s fair to say that Attorney General Harris negotiated and obtained some improvement in the settlement for California.”

Kamala the campaigner

Harris launched her 2020 presidential campaign high on fanfare and hype, only to flame out less than a year later before even making it to Iowa. It was a historically stark underperformance from a candidate that many Democratic insiders believed would be a formidable contender.

In California, Harris’ electoral track record has been mixed.

Her first spin on the campaign trail was a superlative success. In her 2003 race for San Francisco District Attorney, she pushed out a two-term incumbent and won more votes than any other candidate running for a city-wide office that year.

Harris’ first run for statewide office didn’t go quite smoothly. Her race for Attorney General against Republican Steve Cooley wasn’t called until weeks after Election Day. Yes, Harris won. But she did so by less than a percentage point.

Now, after 18 years in which not a single Republican has won statewide office in California, it’s easy to look back at that nail-biter of an election and see an early sign of Harris’ weakness as a candidate. But at the time, the calculus was a little different. Cooley, a relative moderate, was considered the favorite to win against Harris, a San Francisco liberal. This was 2010, which proved to be a historic landslide election for the GOP. The fact that Harris eked it out despite those headwinds, and as the first woman and person of color to hold that office no less, cemented her status as a rising star in the Democratic Party.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris talk as they assess the damage during the Creek Fire at Pine Ridge Elementary on Sept. 15, 2020, in Auberry.

(

Gary Kazanjian

/

AP Photo

)

Also rising was Gavin Newsom. The two were San Francisco friends and ran in the same social circles even before their political careers ignited. They share the same political consultants. And when the two most prestigious California elective offices opened up — for governor and U.S. senator — they sidestepped a ballot rivalry when she successfully ran for the Senate, as did he for governor.

Newsom has said — and recently reiterated — that he would not challenge Harris for the Democratic presidential nomination should Biden withdraw. Although Newsom’s name frequently appears on lists of hypothetical Biden replacements, she is already on the ticket and is seen by many as the heir-apparent.

Regardless, both are publicly saying now, again and again, that they are backing Biden.

This story incorporates prior reporting and interviews from CalMatters’ 2020 election coverage.

Mellody Hobson, businesswoman and Lucas Museum co-founder, has stepped down from the LA28 Board of Directors, LA28 confirmed to LAist Wednesday.

In an email reviewed by LAist, Hobson said that the demands of steering the newly-opened Lucas Museum were too great to continue serving on the 35-person board, which is led by Casey Wasserman.

The move comes after pressure from local activists who sought to meet with Hobson to raise their concerns about the Olympics and Paralympics, including how the Games would affect South Los Angeles where the Lucas Museum is located.

Reverend Gary Bernard Williams, a pastor in South L.A., told LAist before the news that Hobson had resigned that he believed “she could be a person that could be a counterbalance to the other members of the committee that really do not have the same kind of care and concern for what happens to our people,”

Williams, a member of a coalition of labor and community groups called the Fair Games Coalition, said he saw Hobson as the group’s best shot at influencing the LA28 Board, which includes a number of allies of President Donald Trump as well as some city appointees.

Hobson did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

California’s High Speed Rail Authority paid nearly $600,000 in unallowable travel expenses to “questionable locations that appear unrelated to state business,” including trips to gyms, a nightclub, an escape room, a tiki bar and a cigar lounge over a two-year period, according to an investigation released Tuesday by the inspector general that oversees the agency.

The report found that the agency routinely reimbursed consultants for trips that were unauthorized or poorly justified. Some consultants flew first-class and were reimbursed without questioning, in violation of contracts and state policies. One consultant flew his private plane from Washington, D.C. to California and was reimbursed for a premium fare.

“Paying for travel when it is not necessary or when it exceeds what is allowed by state regulations or the contract terms is waste of public funds and is behavior inconsistent with the Authority’s role as the steward of public resources,” the Office of the Inspector General report reads.

Matt Rocco, spokesperson for the high-speed rail authority, said in a written statement that the agency “takes these findings seriously” and will work with the inspector general’s office to fix the issues.

“In response, the Authority will strengthen internal controls around consultant travel, implement more rigorous documentation and approval requirements, and recover any improper costs identified,” he said.

Voters in 2008 approved a plan to build a high-speed rail line stretching from San Francisco to Los Angeles by 2020 at a projected cost of $33 billion. Since then, its route has been significantly scaled back, and the cost has ballooned to at least $126 billion. No tracks have been laid.

The inspector general reviewed $1.15 million out of more than $2 million in travel reimbursements to four outside consulting firms between 2024 and 2026. The OIG said the firms are KPMG LLP, a global financial consulting firm; Nossaman LLP, a national law firm; AECOM-Fluor Joint Venture, which manages and coordinates the authority’s projects, and SYSTRA/TYPSA Joint Venture, which provides tracks and systems design.

None of the firms immediately responded to CalMatters’ requests for comment.

The report found the high-speed rail authority greenlighted at least $685,000 — roughly 60% — in payments without first approving the travel. In some cases, agency staff didn’t even know about the trips until they received invoices.

Even for approved trips, the report found the agency failed to sufficiently vet the requests and lacked records to justify the need for the travel.

The authority frequently approved expenses with vague justifications, such as “typical M-F week” trips, and approved travel at the request of executives without asking why. One consultant flew to California from Denver 20 times during the two-year period to “meet with the executive team” or attend executive meetings, without explaining why the meetings couldn’t have been remote, the report says.

One legal consultant was paid $40,800 in travel reimbursements and an additional $86,500 in “travel time” for 30 trips between Denver and Sacramento in a year. The same consultant “frequently booked flights on the same day the traveling occurred,” the report said.

When questioned about whether he needed to attend the meetings in person, the consultant said the authority’s chief executive, Ian Choudri, had requested his presence so he did not need to justify it and that it would not be appropriate for him to question Choudri’s direction, “as other consultants in other Authority offices are learning the hard way.”

Nearly $600,000 of the $1 million in travel expenses violated state travel policies or the contracts, the report found.

The questionable expenses included:

• Premium Uber and Lyft rides to and from a restaurant, bar, and nightclub between 9:40 p.m. and 2:30 a.m. that “clearly appear to be for personal enjoyment rather than for the benefit of the state;”
• Numerous meals in Folsom, where CEO Choudri has a home; 
• Repeated reimbursed ride-hailing trips to Planet Fitness gyms in and around Sacramento, even after a supervisor wrote that "the state does not cover ride share[s] to gyms";
• $118,000 in international travel despite the contracts explicitly barring international travel;
• A nearly $40 Uber Black luxury car charge for a trip of less than one mile in downtown Sacramento.

Financial adviser KPMG was the consulting firm that billed the authority for trips to the nightclub, the tiki bar and the cigar lounge, Deputy Inspector General Amanda Millen told CalMatters.

“It is important to remember that the critical issue here is not why the consultants visited these locations, but why (High-Speed Rail Authority) consultants included rideshare costs to these locations in their travel claims and why HSRA paid the cost of rideshares to these locations without questioning the business need for these costs,” Millen said in an email.

The report sparked instant outrage from Assembly GOP Leader Alexandra Macedo of Visalia, who called the spending “wasteful and unallowable.” She has been a vocal critic of the project even though Visalia sits along the planned route of the high-speed rail tracks.

Construction on the high-speed rail project over a ramp above Highway 99 in south Fresno on March 3, 2023

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters/CatchLight Local

)

The investigation is the latest wrinkle in the high-speed rail authority’s already troublesome history. The office of inspector general warned in a scathing July report that the agency could run out of cash by December 2027, raising doubts about its ability to finish its planned segment connecting Merced to Bakersfield.

Lawmakers this year approved Assembly Bill 1608, which would strengthen the inspector general’s oversight of the agency. Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto it.

In the new investigation report, the inspector general’s office made several recommendations to help the authority better enforce its travel policies. The authority should require travel expenses to be cost-effective, capped at state employee reimbursement rates and only for state business, the office says. The agency should also send a memo from the chief executive reiterating that all travel be approved in advance, even when the executive requests it, and that the agency review the expenses for the four contractors and seek reimbursement for unjustified travel.

In response, authority officials agreed to adopt some recommendations and partially adopt others by March 2027, including that it would send a memo from the chief executive clarifying travel expectations by February 2027 but it would be issued “‘at the appropriate executive level’ indicating that it may not come from the CEO.”

But the authority insisted it didn’t need to justify each consultant’s trip, prompting the inspector general to reply: “We explained to the Authority that this interpretation is fundamentally incorrect.”

The office will conduct another evaluation after March 2027.

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

Santa Ana employees are prohibited from obtaining outside employment that involves federal immigration enforcement activities. The City Council unanimously adopted the policy on Tuesday night.

What does this mean?

It means an employee’s outside employment can’t involve immigration enforcement duties, such as investigating, arresting, detaining, transporting, or deporting people for federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement or private contractors assisting federal enforcement. The policy does not prohibit employees from getting outside jobs with the U.S. Armed Forces or with the Department of Homeland Security, according to city records.

Why it matters

Santa Ana is home to the largest concentration of Latino residents in Orange County. It's also the county's only self-proclaimed sanctuary city, a designation that limits local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Last summer, ICE raids rattled the city and sparked growing protests.

It’s not immediately clear how many city employees this policy will affect. The effort mirrors a similar law currently being considered at the state level that prohibits California peace officers from moonlighting as ICE agents. The city of Los Angeles adopted a similar policy in March.

What does the policy say?

The ordinance states that outside employment that involves immigration enforcement duties “creates an actual and perceived conflict of interest, exposes the City employee to divided loyalties between their city duties and outside compensation, and undermines community trust in city government generally and in the Santa Ana Police Department in particular.”

What’s next?

A second vote on the policy is required at the next City Council meeting on Oct. 6.

A slim majority of likely California voters are backing a proposed tax on billionaires, according to a new poll, but voters are also lining up behind two competing November ballot measures that could nullify the billionaire tax.

Voters will weigh in Nov. 3 on Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time, 5% wealth tax on billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, 2026. The tax is estimated to raise up to $100 billion and would be used to offset deep federal healthcare cuts imposed last year by Congress.

According to the poll released late Tuesday by the Public Policy Institute of California, 52% of likely voters said they would vote yes on the tax, while 46% said they would vote no.

“Supporters of Proposition 40, the so-called billionaires tax initiative, have a lot of work to do,” said Mark Baldassare, the institute’s statewide survey director, noting the challenge of keeping support above 50% with what is only a “slim” lead.

A T-shirt with a campaign message is seen before the start of a rally led by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, during the campaign kickoff for the California Billionaire Tax Act at The Wiltern in Los Angeles on Feb. 18, 2026.

(

Patrick T. Fallon

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

But opponents of the tax, led by several billionaires, are also asking voters to weigh in on Propositions 41 and 42, which have provisions that could nullify the billionaire tax if they pass with more votes.

Proposition 41, which would make any new taxes subject to the state’s existing spending limit, is leading in the Public Policy Institute of California poll 51% to 44%.

Proposition 42 would prohibit taxes on financial assets such as stocks and other personal property other than real estate. It’s leading in the poll 54% to 43%.

If all three pass, but Proposition 41 or 42 gets more votes than Proposition 40 gets, the state will be prohibited from enforcing the billionaire tax.

“So the supporters [of Proposition 40] have the work to do of both keeping their support, which is now just above 50%, in the majority range, and also raising questions about Propositions 41 and 42 that may reduce support below what Proposition 40 is getting,” Baldassare said.

That task will likely be made even harder by the large amount of money being spent by billionaires against the proposed wealth tax: Opponents of the billionaire tax have already raised nearly $120 million to fight Proposition 40 and support Propositions 41 and 42.

The poll from the Public Policy Institute surveyed 1,103 likely voters from Sept. 4–10 and found an electorate that is pessimistic about the trajectory of both the state and the nation. Majorities of adults and likely voters told pollsters that price increases have caused financial hardship for their households, and just 27% of likely voters approve of President Donald Trump’s job performance.

The survey also found Democrat Xavier Becerra leading Republican Steve Hilton 60%-38% in the race for California governor.

“Affordability continues to be top of mind for Californians,” Baldassare said, “when considering their choice for governor: 65% of likely voters say that a candidate’s plans to address cost-of-living issues are very important to their vote.”

The poll also asked voters about the other 11 ballot measures on the November ballot.

It found strong support for Proposition 3, which would make existing higher tax rates permanent for individuals earning more than $371,000 a year, and for Proposition 37, which would create a new loan program for middle-income home buyers in the state.

Proposition 45, which is aimed at speeding up construction by expediting some environmental reviews, is narrowly leading 48% to 46%.

Likely voters are also backing Proposition 1, which would authorize $11 billion in state bonds for affordable housing, and Proposition 2, which would increase the state’s rainy-day fund.

But a voter ID measure, authored by Republicans in the state Legislature, is trailing in the poll, with 43% of likely voters backing Proposition 39 and 55% opposed.

A voter is given a sticker after dropping his ballot at City Hall in San Francisco on Oct. 30, 2025, ahead of the statewide special election.

(

Beth LaBerge

/

KQED

)

The survey also shows several other measures trailing among likely voters, including Proposition 4, which would repeal a prohibition against public funding of candidate campaigns; Proposition 5, which would change the process for replacing a state elected official who is recalled by voters; and Proposition 43, which would make it harder for voters to approve local tax increases.

In all, California voters will weigh in on 14 ballot measures this fall, and the Public Policy Institute found voters “exhausted” by the responsibility: Nearly 80% of respondents said they are frustrated with the size of the ballot.

Baldassare said it’s the rare question that unites Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

“Every time we’ve asked this question of Californians, they tell us that, you know, there’s too many ballot measures that they have to deal with,” he said. “This is something that everybody agrees on.”