The Brief

In the chaotic final days of the legislative session, lawmakers jammed through major changes to California’s “Lemon Law” that protects consumers from defective cars even as members complained that the complex legislation was rushed too quickly.

Gov. Gavin Newsom nonetheless signed the measure into law earlier this week, saying it was important to address a rising number of lemon law cases clogging the state’s court system.

But he did so reluctantly, only after lawmakers agreed to reconsider the legislation next year and make the reforms voluntary for automakers.

“This bill has drawn substantive opposition from several consumer groups and the majority of automakers, who were not party to the negotiations,” Newsom wrote in a statement to legislators. “While AB 1755 aims to speed resolution of lemon law claims and reduce litigation, many automakers … have expressed serious concerns.”

The last-minute bill and the governor’s demand for changes could create confusion for consumers and automakers while leaving some uncertainty about how much impact it will have on court workloads.

The bill adds new timetables and rules for consumers seeking reimbursement or a replacement for a defective vehicle.

When and if Newsom’s changes are made next year, automakers would be allowed to opt out of the reforms, creating two different legal courses for consumers, depending on their vehicle.

The impact on court caseloads also would be uncertain. But proponents said General Motors was the bill’s strongest supporter, and that company has the most lemon law cases, nearly 26 times more than Toyota, which opposed the legislation. Proponents say that since GM agreed to the reforms, that alone should ease the burden on California’s courts, even if other companies opt out.

Still, the confusion around Assembly Bill 1755 comes after several lawmakers said they were troubled that the bill was the product of secret negotiations between lobbyists who pressured legislators to pass the bill just days before the session adjourned Aug. 31.

“There wasn’t a single person who represents the people of California who knew about this and was a part of those conversations – for months,” Democratic San Ramon Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan told her colleagues on the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Aug. 30. “They dropped this in our lap, and they expect us to buy an argument related to the urgency that feels, to be honest, not real. And we’re supposed to move this in a week’s time.”

Critics say Newsom calling for changes to the bill he just signed is further proof that lawmakers should have pumped the brakes on AB 1755 instead of racing to change the popular 54-year-old Lemon Law.

“The companies that make the most lemons and fail to invest in what it takes to build quality cars and address problems early on are the ones that are being rewarded by this bill,” said Rosemary Shahan of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.

Newsom’s office declined to answer CalMatters’ questions about why he signed the bill instead of vetoing it. A spokesperson referred CalMatters to the message he included when he signed it — one of just 18 such messages Newsom included with the 1,017 bills he signed this year.

It could take several months before lawmakers pass the changes Newsom wants. In the meantime, the provisions of AB 1755 take effect next year.

Will the lemon law changes help car buyers?

The bill by Assemblymember Ash Kalra of San Jose and Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana, both Democrats, passed easily despite a handful of lawmakers from both parties saying they were troubled by the last-minute rush. Some also questioned whether the bill would help consumers.

“I want to make sure that consumers are protected as well,” Downey Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco said. “Those are our constituents. And so that is what we really should be caring about. And I don’t know if consumers are really protected.”

Kalra and Umberg had pitched their bill as a compromise between U.S. automakers, consumer attorneys and judges who came together to address a troubling backlog of lemon law cases in the courts.

The number of such cases in California courts climbed from nearly 15,000 in 2022 to more than 22,000 last year. In Los Angeles County, nearly 10% of all civil filings are now Lemon Law cases.

Proponents argue the bill will speed up the process of getting consumers a working vehicle, while also setting new procedural rules for the litigation process that will ease the burden on the courts.

“We are grateful to Gov. Newsom for adding his signature on AB 1755, which implements new fast-track deadlines and procedures that will make our lemon law easier for consumers to use while ensuring California continues to lead the nation in safeguarding consumers’ rights,” Nancy Drabble, CEO of Consumer Attorneys of California, said in a written statement.

Under the new law, auto companies must respond to a written consumer complaint in 30 days, and car companies would have to fix a defective vehicle or replace it within 30 days after that. Previously, proponents said there was no set timeline, and the new deadlines would resolve most cases before they go to court.

“The consumer can wait for months,” Drabble told lawmakers in August. “They may not get an answer. They may be ghosted.”

But critics, such as Shahan of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, say the law Newsom signed contains other provisions that would harm car buyers.

She said it will shorten the time in which a customer can sue, reduce how much money they can receive in rebates and shrink the period they can use the lemon law to just six years instead of the entire life of a vehicle’s warranty, which can last longer.

Shahan said the real winners from AB 1755 are the U.S. car companies that backed the bill since they’re the ones most commonly sued under the state’s lemon law.

Between 2018 and 2021, General Motors had the highest rate of lemon law cases filed against it, one case for every 78 vehicles sold in California. Fiat Chrysler had one for every 107 vehicles; Ford had one for every 148 of its cars and trucks, according to figures Shahan’s organization compiled with other consumer groups.

By comparison, there was just one lemon suit filed for every 304 Volkswagens sold, one for every 476 Hondas and one for every 2,029 Toyotas.

Those figures are why nearly every foreign-owned auto company opposed AB 1755.

The foreign car companies wanted reforms to the state’s lemon laws, but they said the tighter schedule for litigation helps a company like GM that has hundreds of cases to resolve. They said it could prevent the companies that have fewer suits from taking the time to prepare their best case. The foreign car companies also said they were cut out of the negotiations.

“We shared a litany of concerns with the proponents that we believe exasperate, not alleviate, many of the current problems,” Kerry Fowler, a lawyer for Honda, told the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Aug. 30. “But those concerns have been ignored.”

Another example of a rushed bill?

If the point of the law was to address a massive uptick in lemon law cases jamming up the state’s court system, how will Newsom’s plan of giving a group of auto companies the right to opt out of the new rules solve the problem?

Assemblymember Kalra, the bill’s coauthor, told CalMatters he’s confident that the auto companies that pushed for the measure will embrace the new rules. General Motors, Stellantis (formerly Chrysler) and Ford supported the bill.

“I don’t see it as a major issue for (foreign companies) to opt out, since we’re going to be having the major manufacturers with most of the cases moving forward with it,” Kalra said. “I think that will really help to unclog the courts and get resolution to consumers much more quickly.”

Sen. Umberg, the bill’s coauthor, suggested that even companies that opposed the bill will comply with the reforms since, if they don’t, it would make them an easier target for the attorneys behind the massive uptick in lemon-law suits.

“If the manufacturers decide to opt out, I mean, the lemon law lawyers would love it, love it, love it, love it,” he said. “They have been very vigorous in their opposition.”

Kalra said he felt moving quickly on the bill was important and not waiting until the next session begins in January.

“In those few months, things can fall apart,” he said. “We (could have) lost the opportunity to update this important consumer-protection law.”

Critics, however, say that AB 1755 was the latest example of lawmakers rushing a consequential bill, leaving little time to fully understand, vet or debate a measure that will have broad impact for years across California.

“Part of the point of having a full-time Legislature … is taking the time to deliberate and to really comb over these bills and make informed decisions,” said Scott Kaufman, a lobbyist for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “That doesn’t seem to be happening in way too many cases.”

The 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles was paired with an equally elaborate arts festival: 10 weeks of programming around the region that included more than 400 performances and led to the launch of the Los Angeles Opera.

Fast forward more than 40 years, and lawmakers and experts are questioning whether L.A. can pull off a similar success in the summer of 2028, with less than two years to go.

“We had an opportunity to have a longer runway leading up to the Games…We had a lot of time,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, who was on the City Council when it negotiated the 1984 Olympic Games and closely observes plans for 2028. “And it just didn’t happen.”

Yaroslavsky and others testified Wednesday at a state hearing on the 2028 “Cultural Olympiad,” the arts and culture programming that will accompany the coming Games in Los Angeles.

At that meeting, officials from organizing committee LA28 and the city and county arts and culture departments laid out their plans, which will launch in the summer of 2027. They’ll include neighborhood festivals, a mural program, posters designed by local artists and partnerships with L.A.’s cultural institutions.

The planners presented a vision of arts sprawled across the region, lifting up local artists and bringing performances and installations into L.A.’s public spaces — but they were less clear on how the programming would be funded and who would be included.

The city of L.A. has already set aside $15 million for Olympics arts programming, but further fundraising for the Cultural Olympiad is still ongoing, according to LA28 and the city.

State Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, who represents neighborhoods including downtown L.A. and Exposition Park, told organizers she was concerned that without clarity on funding opportunities soon, organizers would leave out community groups and artists in neighborhoods that need the investment, like Altadena, South L.A. and East L.A. She also wanted to know how much money LA28 was earmarking for local artists specifically.

“Given the short timeframe and given some of the structure I’m seeing, I’m a little concerned,” she said.

Dwayne Jones, a LA28 vice president working on the Cultural Olympiad, told lawmakers that they were raising “tens of millions” of dollars for the program, but didn’t offer specifics.

What’s in the works 

L.A.’s Olympics arts programming will launch in July of 2027, with a poster series designed by local artists. LA28 will also facilitate a program for L.A. institutions to apply to be an official part of the 2028 Cultural Olympiad, put on a film series, and offer subsidized tickets to cultural institutions and events.

The city of L.A. is planning its own local arts festivals in each council district, and will install new murals around the city tied to the Olympic and Paralympic Games. L.A.’s Department of Cultural Affairs has drafted plans to expand to a seven-week citywide festival if it can secure $25 million in additional funding.

“ We want L.A. to know that the Games are not happening to L.A., but happening for L.A.,” said Daniel Tarica, who leads that department, at Wednesday’s hearing.

Lessons learned from past Olympics

The Olympics may bring a lot of spectators to the region, but it does not typically flood local cultural attractions, such as museums. In fact, during the 2012 Olympics in London and 2024 Olympics in Paris, some museums reported a decline in visitors, according to Tawny Paul, a professor of history at UCLA who studied those recent festivals.

Paul told lawmakers on Wednesday that to counteract these lulls, L.A.’s 2028 arts offerings should cater to locals, and institutions would need to bring their offerings out of their normal locations and into the areas around competitions and fan zones.

She also offered lessons from the 1984 arts festival, which she said was lauded as a success, but faced criticism for focusing on international artists, rather than artistic communities in Los Angeles. Some in L.A. were so upset by the 1984 Cultural Olympiad, Paul said, that they put on their own fringe festivals in response.

Like Smallwood-Cuevas, Paul also warned that it would take greater resources to include smaller community-based art groups in the Cultural Olympiad.

“One of the things that the Cultural Olympiad can do really well is help lend visibility to different arts offerings,” she said. “But what I’ll warn is that visibility without resources would favor institutions and communities that already have capacity.”

California has more solar power than it can use during the day, and while the state is increasingly storing that energy in batteries, there’s a simpler strategy to help too: changing behavior.

“If we can better align our consumption with the sun, we use more clean energy, we reduce pressure on the grid in the evening, and we eventually lower costs for everyone,” said Magali Delmas, a strategy professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management and Institute of the Environment.

Solar and wind power are also the state’s cheapest source of electricity (our high electricity costs are mostly driven by utilities distributing that energy and shoring up the grid in the face of worsening wildfires and increased electrification).

Delmas is the research lead on a pilot program launched this month by L.A.-based nonprofit electricity provider Clean Power Alliance. For the next two years, 4,000 customers will get lower cost electricity during the day, then Delmas and her team will analyze the data to see if more people actually used it. (Customers don't pay Clean Power Alliance anything for generating the solar electricity but still have to pay the utility that delivers it.)

“The question is whether free electricity in the middle of the day is enough to change habits,” Delmas said.

The work could inform future rate incentives that also reduce stress on the grid during high demand.

It’s not an entirely new idea — Australia has experimented with periods of free electricity.

Time-of-use rates also aim to incentivize behavior. Delmas said this pilot provides a larger financial incentive given the electricity generation cost is set to $0. The Clean Power Alliance estimates it could save customers hundreds on their electric bills per year.

The pilot also focuses on customers who have already electrified their homes to a certain extent — they can’t have rooftop solar, but maybe they swapped a gas stove for induction, a gas water heater for an electric heat pump, or have an electric pool pump or electric vehicle they charge at home. Though the pilot isn’t adding customers, qualifying customers can sign up any time for the pilot’s rates.

“We're also in the business on the climate side of trying to actually incentivize electrification,” said Ted Bardacke, chief executive of the Clean Power Alliance.

Though it may seem impossible to reschedule when you charge your EV or run the A/C or dishwasher, Bardacke said increased automation can be key to managing the future grid.

“Most dishwashers today have a delay setting, so why not hit that delay setting to run beginning at 8 o'clock in the morning?” Bardacke said. “Let's say you have an air conditioner with a programmable thermostat. Why not run the air conditioning from 2 to 4 [in the afternoon] when the electricity is not costing you [as much] and have it nice and cool when you get home?”

The Los Angeles Unified School District is taking the first steps to reshape the country’s second-largest school district and the education of more than 300,000 students.

More than 40% fewer students attend LAUSD schools than in the early 2000s, yet the district operates nearly the same number of campuses.

“Our goal is not just to have fewer schools,” said Superintendent Andrés Chait during a September board meeting. “Our goal is to have stronger schools.”

LAUSD concluded the first round of public meetings Monday in a process that could lead to a board vote on school closures within the next year. And under growing scrutiny from state and L.A. County officials, district administrators are also considering a series of budget cuts that could lead to the elimination of thousands of jobs to avoid running out of money.

Gates Street Elementary parent Maria Tellos attended a community meeting at Roybal Learning Center Monday.

“I want to see accountability from LAUSD,” Tellos said. “I want to ask questions and see what their answers are.”

But at this point, the district doesn’t have answers to many of the questions Tellos and others are asking about which schools could be closed and when — and that’s by design.

“Right now it's about just establishing the ‘why.’ Like, why do we even need to have this conversation?” said Pedro Salcido, a deputy superintendent, at the start of the meeting.

The district’s budget problems

The decision to close schools is among the most controversial and emotionally charged decisions a district can make. School closures can displace students, shutter community gathering places and fan outrage from families, community members and alumni.

The district started its campaign — “Stronger Schools Together” — with a series of in-person and virtual community meetings across the district.

LAist attended Monday’s meeting, which was targeted toward families in the eastern part of the district and a virtual meeting on Oct. 7 for those in the south.

In both, the district outlined the factors officials say are at the root of its upcoming decisions.

LAUSD enrolled more than 700,000 students in the early 2000s. The short-term solutions to overcrowding included building temporary classrooms (called bungalows) and operating more than 200 campuses year-round.

The district asked voters to approve more than $20 billion in bond funding between 1997 and 2008 — paid back through property tax increases — and built 131 new schools.

By the time the last school opened in 2017, enrollment was already falling.

Declining birth rates, Southern California’s high cost of living for families and competition from publicly funded charter schools mean fewer students attending LAUSD schools. More recently, the district has linked widespread and sometimes violent immigration enforcement actions to a decline in students who are new to the country or concerned about the safety of themselves or family members.

In the last decade, statewide enrollment has decreased by 8%, about 500,000 students, according to the most recent data from the California Department of Education.

What happens when schools lose students?

In California, enrollment drives school funding and helps determine the resources a school gets, including teachers and other support staff. And that means schools can lose resources as a consequence of enrolling fewer students.

For example, small elementary schools may not have enough students to fill each grade level and may have to combine two grades into a single classroom.

Smaller high schools may not be able to offer as many electives or advanced classes where students can earn college credit and bolster their applications to competitive schools.

The district outlined some scenarios for reducing the number of schools:

• Merging schools, including some that already share a campus, into a single school
• Closing a school and repurposing the campus

The next step in the process is for the district to seek more community input and create a framework for evaluating which schools would be targeted for closure or consolidation.

What information will be used to make decisions?

The school board would need to vote to approve the framework and any recommended closures.

In a September school board meeting, Chait said that any school identified for potential closure would be notified at least one academic year before shutting down or merging with another campus. However, Chait said there could be an exception for school communities actively seeking consolidation.

At this same meeting, district staff presented the plan for closures and consolidations; board members’ reactions ranged from enthusiastic to unhappy.

“I’m excited we’re getting started on this,” said Tanya Ortiz Franklin, a board member who represents District 7, from South L.A. to the harbor area. “As hard as it’s going to be, I know it’s important.”

Ortiz Franklin was also one of several board members who raised concerns that schools serving low-income, Black and Latino students could be disproportionately targeted for closure or consolidation.

Research shows school closures can have a negative impact on students' academic outcomes in the short term and beyond graduation — and these closures have often disproportionately hurt Black and Latino students.

“It’s been mostly vulnerable communities that have been historically disadvantaged, that have suffered school closures,” said Karla Griego, a board member who represents District 5’s Northeast and Southwest L.A. neighborhoods. “So this doesn’t make me happy, and I’m going to be very honest.”

It’s also unclear how much money — if any — might be saved if LAUSD closes schools.

The district’s $3.5 billion budget-cutting plan outlines $30 million in savings from school consolidation starting in the 2028-29 school year. But the money saved from campus closures could be lost again by students leaving the district as a result of the shutdowns, according to a Stanford review of California public school data between 2011 and 2019.

‘We just don’t know’

At Monday’s community meeting at Roybal Learning Center, about a dozen community members were outnumbered by district staff in a room set up for more than 100. A district spokesperson said in a statement that more than 1,400 people attended the eight meetings spread across L.A. Meetings targeting the Eastside had the lowest participation.

Tellos, the Gates Street Elementary parent, is part of Reclaim Our Schools LA, a coalition that advocates against privatizing public education. She said the recently announced federal immigration enforcement crackdown in California deterred Eastside families from attending.

Tellos said she hopes future convenings will be held at more local schools where families feel safer gathering.

“It just feels very overwhelming to think that our schools could no longer be there,” Tellos said. “We just don't know what's gonna happen.”

An LAUSD spokesperson said in a statement that the district will hold more informational sessions through November, with more in-depth meetings in the late fall and winter.

Jewel Brown, principal at Ramón C. Cortines School of Visual and Performing Arts, said she was leaving the meeting with a “sense of urgency” to figure out how to shield her campus from potential cuts.

“This feels almost like the greatest budget deficit that I would say I've navigated through in my 25 years of experience [in LAUSD],” Brown said. “I'm worried, but I also know I just need to equally be prepared.”

Kimberly Soto, 16, a junior at Roosevelt High School who’s part of an activism club called Students Deserve, was one of the few students at the meeting.

She left with a long list of questions about what life on a consolidated campus would be like: How will students get to school? Will the hallways be crowded?

“I want to get more students involved in, like, knowing what's happening also so they could have a say,” Soto said.

Share how you feel

Childcare costs continue to rise, and recent surveys have shown that families with children struggle with affordability. In California, the average annual cost of childcare for an infant at a childcare center was more than $23,000 in 2025.

And voters are paying attention. A recent poll found that nationwide, 3 in 4 voters saw the cost of childcare for families with young children as a “crisis” or “major problem,” and more than 8 in 10 voters saw it as part of the affordability crisis. It’s one reason childcare has become a hot political topic in places across the country, from New York City to New Mexico, policymakers have recently unveiled universal childcare initiatives.

At the same time, the Trump administration has said childcare should be left up to states. “We're a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people. We're fighting wars. We can't take care of daycare,” President Donald Trump said earlier this year.

So what can elected officials in California — from the Los Angeles mayor to the governor — do to help? We asked local and statewide candidates what “affordable childcare” means and how to make it happen.

Here’s where they stand.

Governor

What can the governor do?

The governor’s office has major authority over how — and which — services get funded in the state. Each year, the governor proposes a budget, outlining the office’s priorities. The budget is then turned over to the state Legislature, which can make its own changes and negotiate with the governor before approving it.

“The governor is the chief administrator of all the major agencies,” said Stacy Lee, senior managing director for early childhood with Children Now. "So the governor can use their administrative and executive authority to align priorities. We saw this in New Mexico."

During his term, Gov. Gavin Newsom made early childhood education and care a key part of his agenda. One landmark initiative was the implementation of a brand new grade for 4-year-olds in the public school system. But implementation hasn't been without hurdles — and privately run preschools have been closing in the state at the same time.

What do the candidates say?

Neither candidate for this office responded to LAist’s survey.

Democrat Xavier Becerra’s campaign website promises he would “[expand] help with childcare and essential costs,” but did not specify how.

Republican Steve Hilton’s website outlines actions he would take, including creating a home visiting program to support families and expanding paid family leave from eight to 12 weeks.

Read more about the California Governor race.

State Assembly and Senate

What can state legislators do?

Members of the California state Assembly and state Senate hold the power to introduce bills to help address the childcare system in the state. “They could be part of policy bills that streamline, reduce bureaucracy, eliminate barriers for children, families, providers and others in the system,” Lee said.

They also ultimately approve the governor’s budget and can advocate for funding through the process. This past year, for example, lawmakers opposed the governor’s proposal to cut funding for subsidized childcare slots for low-income families and eventually approved funding for more spaces.

Lawmakers have also taken on some novel ideas to address childcare costs: in Riverside County, a state Assemblymember secured funding to try to create a "special district" for childcare — the first of its kind in the state.

• Read more about the State Senate races.
• Read more about the State Assembly races.

LA Mayor

What can the mayor do?

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani made headlines over the last year in promising universal childcare for all in the city — and other cities have taken on their own efforts to try to make childcare more accessible.

L.A.’s mayor doesn’t have some of the same powers that mayors in other cities, like New York, have. For example, the mayor doesn’t have authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District — a significant provider of preschool options and the largest city where the mayor doesn’t have direct power over the school system. But the mayor proposes the city’s $14 billion budget, can issue executive orders and oversees the city’s departments, like the Department of Recreation and Parks, which ran free childcare centers with federal COVID relief funding before it ran out of money.

Cities have also found revenue streams to fund childcare initiatives in their jurisdictions. Washington, D.C., for example, has used a tax on residents earning more than $250,000 a year to boost the pay of childcare providers — similar to San Francisco, which uses a commercial property tax.

There are things mayors can do for their employees as well. For example, New York City opened up a free childcare center for city employees.

• Read more about the L.A. Mayor race.

LA City Council

What can Councilmembers do?

The L.A. City Council approves the city’s budget, proposed by the mayor, and can advocate for how those funds are allocated. City Councilmembers also create and adopt local laws, or “ordinances,” that regulate life and business in the city.

“If you think at a city level … people think of potholes and roads and things, right? There's a lot of basic infrastructure things that they're responsible for, and that includes rules and laws around building codes, licensing,” Lee said.

That could also mean addressing issues around permitting and zoning for childcare facilities, and identifying city buildings that could be put to use for childcare. The City Council was also the body that approved using federal COVID relief money to open 10 licensed preschools at Recreation and Parks facilities.

• Read more about the L.A. City Council races: District 3 | District 9

OC Board of Supervisors

What can the Supervisors do?

The Orange County Board of Supervisors decides how the budget is split up each year toward county departments and services.

Counties, like cities, can also find ways to create revenue streams to provide services. San Francisco is both a city and county, and it used a commercial property tax to fund childcare. “Just like people raise funds for their local library, you could do that for childcare,” Lee said. Similar to other offices, supervisors can also advocate for childcare at the state and federal level.

The board also appoints the members to the Orange County Child Care and Development Planning Council. Every county in California has such a council, which serves as a body to discuss and plan childcare needs in the county.

Supervisors can also issue discretionary funds. Earlier this year, the county awarded $75,000 to First 5 Orange County for a “childcare business incubator” program.

What do the candidates say?

• Read more about the OC Board of Supervisors race.