The Brief

A bill to allow insurance companies to monitor California drivers’ behavior in exchange for potential discounts on their premiums would change the state’s longstanding insurance law, drawing opposition from the Insurance Department as well as consumer and privacy advocates.

Assembly Bill 311 would let insurance companies use telematics — technology installed in vehicles that allows them to transmit information such as location, speed, braking force, swerving and more — when setting rates for drivers who choose to allow themselves to be tracked.

California is the only state in the nation that does not allow insurers to use telematics in setting rates. State law requires insurers to prioritize safety record, miles driven and driving experience as the main factors when they set drivers’ premiums. The bill would let drivers choose to use telematics data to establish their driving records in addition to what their Department of Motor Vehicles records show. Telematics data is collected by smartphone app, systems embedded in vehicles or other connected technology.

Supporters say the legislation would make streets and highways safer by encouraging better driving, while opponents worry about privacy, lack of transparency and possible bias in insurance pricing.

Kellie Montalvo, a parent whose son died after a distracted driver hit him, testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Insurance on June 24. She said her son Benjamin, 21, was riding his bike in 2020 when he was hit by a driver who had been texting while driving. She said the driver had a record of “speeding tickets, prior crashes and this was her fourth hit-and-run.”

“I spend many sleepless nights wondering if she had been stopped at any point prior to that horrific night, would my beautiful son be here today,” Montalvo said, her voice breaking. She urged lawmakers to pass the bill, saying it will save lives.

Other witnesses, also clearly emotional, expressed support for the bill as they carried enlarged photos of the loved ones they’ve lost because of crashes.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood, said at the committee hearing that she has lost three friends in vehicle crashes in the past several years. She called telematics a tool to help make streets safer, saying her bill would “incentivize safer, good driving behavior.”

Safer Streets for Everyone, a nonprofit organization advocating for road safety, co-sponsored the legislation. The group’s founder and executive director, Damian Kevitt, is a cyclist who was hit by a car and lost his leg. He testified before the committee, citing a couple of studies that show drivers improved their behavior — including reducing their use of mobile phones — while behind the wheel when financial rewards were involved.

Both studies were backed by the insurance industry. None of the proponents who testified recently before two Senate committees advanced the bill mentioned any independent studies around whether telematics has helped improve safety.

Other supporters of the bill include several road-safety coalitions and bicycle associations from around the state.

Insurance department’s concerns

The state’s insurance department is opposed to the bill, saying the legislation is not compatible with California insurance law, Proposition 103. The law came out of a ballot proposition written by Harvey Rosenfield, the founder of consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, in response to rising car and home insurance premiums almost four decades ago. It was approved by 51% of the state’s voters in 1988 and includes a mandate for insurance companies to give “good drivers” 20% discounts. (Some drivers also receive discounts for low mileage — it’s a form of monitoring that’s OK under Prop. 103 because miles driven is an allowed factor in rate-setting.)

“The bill creates broad liability loopholes, dilutes regulator oversight, and allows insurance companies to shift core regulatory responsibilities to unregulated third-party telematics vendors, among other concerns,” wrote Josephine Figueroa, deputy insurance commissioner and legislative director for the department, to Sen. Steve Padilla, chairperson of the Senate insurance committee, on June 20.

Figueroa wrote that the bill contains vague language about how insurance companies are supposed to do “due diligence” around third-party telematics providers, and using telematics data as part of drivers’ records. She said the insurance department has documented cases “where facially neutral criteria produce disparate impacts, such as the use of census-tract voter registration rates as a proxy for race or citizenship.”

In addition, she said “consumer savings also remain generally unproven and varied.” She cited data from the Maryland Insurance Administration, which showed that in 2023, 31% of that state’s drivers enrolled in their insurers’ telematics program saw their rates drop; 24% actually experienced an increase; and 45% saw no change in their premiums.

Maryland’s research also showed that the telematics systems collected a lot of data that included trip route, days driven, G-force, unsafe following, aggressive turning and many more driver behaviors. Most insurers outsourced the collection of that data to third parties.

California’s Senate insurance committee passed the bill four days after Figueroa’s letter.

The insurance department is meeting with McKinnor’s staff about its concerns, according to Michael Soller, spokesperson for the department. McKinnor and her staff would not answer CalMatters’ questions about the bill.

Some of the insurance department’s concerns about the legislation align with those of Consumer Watchdog.

“In California, auto insurance has to be rated in a driver's actual driving history, not the product of an unverified algorithm or (artificial intelligence) system predicting future driving,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, in testimony before the Senate insurance committee.

In an interview with CalMatters, Balber wondered why the legislation — a “gut-and-amend,” a bill that has been substantially reworked or rewritten, has missed the introduction deadline and is meant to be fast-tracked, often because it’s controversial — is bypassing the typical hearing process. The new language was submitted to the Senate June 10; Balber said her group had less than a week’s notice that it was coming up for discussion.

That worry, too, is in line with that of the insurance department. Figueroa wrote in her letter to Padilla that she was concerned that the bill, as gutted and amended, contains language the department had reviewed and expressed reservations about several months ago.

The list of the bill’s supporters includes insurance industry groups that have long pushed for telematics use in California. One group in particular, the Personal Insurance Federation of California, has given about $1,000 worth of dinner and travel to McKinnor several times over the past few years, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database. She has also received campaign contributions from the group, as well as other insurance industry groups and employees, totaling $38,000 since 2022, state campaign finance records show.

Padilla, a Democrat from the San Diego area who chairs the Senate insurance committee, was unavailable to respond to CalMatters’ questions about the concerns the insurance department raised in the letter it sent him, spokesperson Cameron Sutherland said. Padilla also is on the Senate Standing Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection, which passed the bill a few days after the insurance committee did and referred it to the appropriations committee.

Padilla has received about the same amount of campaign contributions from the insurance industry since 2022, according to campaign finance records.

The insurance department sent the chairperson of the privacy committee, Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Democrat from Napa, a similar letter with its concerns about the bill, according to Soller. Cabaldon's office did not immediately respond to CalMatters' request to talk about the letter.

Cabaldon showed strong support for the bill, saying during his committee hearing that consumers should have the choice to use their driving data how they want and that he believed in the technology’s potential. He has also received campaign contributions from the insurance industry — about $27,000 going back to when he ran for the state Assembly in 2008, campaign finance records show.

The numbers, or lack thereof

California has some of the highest rates for full auto insurance coverage in the nation, according to at least one analysis, by MarketWatch, a news publication with an arm that publishes commerce guides. Another analysis, by insurance-comparison site Insurify, says California’s car insurance rates have been rising for the past couple of years and are projected to increase 1% this year.

Maryland’s research on the effects of telematics is the first by a state insurance regulator, according to Consumer Federation of America, a national association of consumer nonprofit organizations. The group is urging other state regulators to follow suit.

“You can’t trust companies to do this without oversight,” Michael DeLong, research and advocacy associate for the group, told CalMatters. He said companies can collect a lot of information about drivers and use it to make money; an example of that is a recent settlement between the California Justice Department and General Motors, penalizing the automaker for selling driver data associated with its OnStar emergency roadside and navigation service.

DeLong said the group plans to write a letter criticizing AB 311.

At least one other independent survey, by Consumer Reports in 2024, has shown that telematics can help reduce drivers’ premiums. The survey found a median annual savings of $120 — including higher savings for Black and Latino drivers than for white and Asian drivers — but also found that some drivers’ insurance costs rose.

Consumer and privacy advocates, including ACLU California Action, Consumer Federation of California and TechEquity Action, worry that some drivers will feel like they have no choice but to give up their privacy in exchange for possibly saving money. In doing so, they could also open themselves up to bias depending on where they live, work and drive.

The bill “would authorize an opaque surveillance pricing infrastructure for a product Californians are legally required to purchase,” Becca Cramer, speaking for Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, told both the Senate insurance committee and privacy committee. “Californians have a constitutional right to privacy and not have to choose between exercising that right and affording a mandatory product.”

Cramer also cited the Consumer Reports survey and said telematics companies score drivers based on “factors that correlate strongly with race and income."

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

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must continue providing gender-affirming care to transgender inmates in federal prisons.

The decision, in an emergency appeal, maintains a lower court's injunction on a federal Bureau of Prisons' policy that would terminate hormone therapy and other treatments for trans inmates.

The order offered no explanation behind the decision. It simply read, "The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied."

It also said Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would side with the Trump administration and would grant the application for stay.

A federal district judge barred the BOP from implementing its policy this summer.

A second court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, also rejected the administration's request to pause U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth's order.

That's when U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

As the federal judge's injunction remains in place, the legal battle over the policy continues.

Li Nowlin-Sohl, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union and a lawyer involved in this case, said the organization believes there are more than 2,000 people in BOP custody who identify as transgender. (The BOP stopped publishing data reflecting transgender inmates after Trump took office in 2025. It only records male or female individuals incarcerated in the federal system.)

Kingdom v. Trump represents 1,000 inmates who have a gender dysphoria diagnosis, Nowlin-Sohl explained. Of those, the ACLU believes there are about 800 who have been prescribed hormone therapy and many who are also receiving social transition accommodations, Nowlin-Sohl said.

In its request for an emergency stay on the earlier rulings, the Trump administration argued that providing this care poses several risks, including for recipients of this specialized care, who it argued would become "targets for attacks." They also said that it raises "fairness concerns" as it would "breed resentment" with other inmates.

Access to gender-affirming care is considered medically necessary to treat gender dysphoria, a medical term used to describe the deep discomfort caused by a mismatch between a person's assigned sex at birth and their gender identity. Without it, individuals can struggle severely with mental health issues such as heightened anxiety and depression, with some turning to self-harm and suicide.

Gender-affirming care can include "...hormone therapy, and gender-affirming surgeries among others," according to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. (In its filings, the Trump administration questioned WPATH's standards of care, which were developed by experts in transgender health and used by organizations across the world.)

Some people who are transgender may require hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries; others may not require any of these interventions.

The BOP has treated people diagnosed with gender dysphoria since at least 1992, the ACLU said in response to the government's filings to the Supreme Court.

"Had BOP's doctors found this treatment unhelpful or harmful to patients or had the agency found that the treatment compromised security, surely BOP would have mentioned it in the administrative record," the ACLU wrote.

This is a "glaring omission" and appears to indicate that the government's arguments now are simply "contrived," the ACLU continued.

NPR previously covered the impact of the loss of hormone treatments on people who are incarcerated. One woman said she experienced severe physical and mental anguish when she lost access to hormone treatments.

The Supreme Court's decision is at odds with other rulings that support the Trump administration's anti-trans policy agenda.

Last June, the court ruled that states can ban transgender girls from participating in sports at publicly funded schools. And in 2025, the court upheld state laws that make it illegal for doctors and other health professionals to provide gender-affirming care for minors.

In one of his first executive orders of his second term, President Trump targeted the trans community with a declaration that his administration recognizes just two sexes, male and female. This order has been the basis for a host of anti-trans policies throughout the administration.

Copyright 2026 NPR

If Proposition 3 looks familiar, it’s because this is the third time the income tax measure has appeared on California ballots. But this time might be the last.

Prop. 3 would permanently extend an income tax on the wealthy to fund schools, healthcare and other state services. It first appeared on the ballot as a temporary tax in 2012 to help schools through the Great Recession, and voters renewed it in 2016. Now, its supporters are asking voters to make it permanent before it expires in 2031.

“I can’t overstate how important this is,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union and a primary supporter of the measure. “It’s only a tax on the wealthiest Californians, but it’s vital for our schools.”

Prop. 3 would extend a tax on individuals who earn more than $371,000 or couples who earn more than $743,000 annually. It generated between $5 billion and $15 billion a year, fluctuating with the stock market, interest rates and other factors that affect the income of the state’s top earners.

Top earners would continue paying an income tax rate of 12.3% if the measure passes. Tack on the state’s additional 1% tax on income over $1 million for mental health services and California’s highest-earners wind up with an income tax rate of 13.3%, the highest in the nation.

The bulk of the money would be funnelled through the state’s Proposition 98 funding mechanism, which guarantees 40% of the state budget be set aside for K-12 schools and community colleges. If the money surpasses a certain level, the extra would go toward a budget rainy day fund.

Prop. 3 would also pay for healthcare and other services because it frees up money the state would ordinarily spend on schools for other services, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Of the Prop. 98 money, 89% goes to K-12 schools and 11% goes to community colleges.

In flush years, the income tax makes up about 15% of the state’s overall K-12 education budget. If it doesn’t pass, school districts will be forced to lay off up to 50,000 teachers and make other cuts, Goldberg said.

Union’s big push

The teachers union is aggressively supporting the measure. It collected thousands of signatures to win a spot on the ballot and sent members to knock on more than 200,000 doors throughout the state. Goldberg described the campaign as “one of our biggest, most ambitious efforts yet.”

The powerful union as well as other groups have raised more than $40 million to pass Prop. 3. Opponents, which include taxpayer associations, have raised $5,500.

The measure appears to have an edge with voters. According to a Public Policy Institute of California poll conducted in September, 58% of likely voters said they planned to vote yes on the measure. Among Democrats, 82% said they favored it, while 18% of Republicans said they did.

Prop. 3 is not the only tax-the-rich measure on the Nov. 3 ballot. Proposition 40 would levy a 5% tax on Californians with assets of more than $1 billion, with 90% of the money going toward healthcare and the rest divided between schools, food assistance programs and other services. The teachers union opposes Prop. 40 because it argues schools wouldn’t receive enough of the money, Goldberg said.

“We’re not campaigning against Prop. 40. We’re just prioritizing Prop. 3,” Goldberg said.

The union decided to put the measure on the ballot now, more than four years before the current tax expires, because schools typically plan their budgets many years in advance and need plenty of advance warning of significant changes in revenues, Goldberg said.

‘Not sustainable’

Susan Shelley, vice president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, questioned whether schools need more money, considering the state’s recent investments and declining enrollment.

“We have fewer and fewer students. Does this mean we need fewer teachers? Maybe it does,” Shelley said. “It’s time to revisit some of these costs. Some districts have unaffordable labor contracts, fewer students … It’s not sustainable.”

In addition, she said, California already has the highest personal income tax rate – 13.3% – in the country. Adding more will only drive the wealthiest residents – and their money – from the state, which will have a disproportionate impact on state revenues, she said. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state’s top 2% of earners pay about half the state’s income taxes.

California’s K-12 enrollment has declined steadily for at least a decade, with schools losing more than 500,000 students since the mid-2010s. Families are having fewer children, immigration is down and many families have left California because of the high cost of living.

Still, California has among the country’s highest student-to-teacher ratios. In 2022-23, California had one teacher for every 22 students, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The national average was 1:15. In New York, it was just over 1:11.

That’s why California schools need more money, said Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser at the advocacy group Children Now.

“Those ratios mean that students who need extra help aren’t getting it, which is why we have such a large achievement gap in California,” Manwaring said. “It’s dire.”

He also noted that federal budget cuts will continue affecting California, including its schools, and the state will need revenue to backfill those costs. The chance of an economic downturn in the next few years will also imperil school funding.

“No one wants to project out too far, but schools might see some very tight budgets,” Manwaring said.

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