“The ruling “limits this blunt instrument of punishing people for not taking care of traffic tickets when in reality, for many Californians, traffic tickets are simply too expensive to take care of,” said Rebecca Miller, senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty, one of the organizations that sued the Department of Motor Vehicles.”
“That board includes a number of legal heavy hitters, including retired California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, Western Center on Law & Poverty Executive Director Crystal Crawford, and U.S. District Judge David Carter of the Central District of California.”
Governor Newsom has released his proposed 2021-22 state budget. Due to a strong, unanticipated influx of General Fund revenue, Newsom proposes to spend billions of dollars on a one-time basis to address the immediate needs of tenants, landlords, businesses, schools and others in the midst of the pandemic. The budget follows the outlines of the 2020-21 budget agreement, which largely avoided the draconian cuts to education, health and public benefit programs that characterized many past budgets during economic downturns. This proposed budget, while not austere, is conservative both in terms of its long term economic outlook and ambition to meet existing needs of millions of Californians.
Though the budget avoids deep cuts and proposes immediate action to bolster spending, the Governor assumes slower growth in revenue in future years, resulting in significant deficits beginning in 2022-23, which could result in lower spending in the future. In short, the 2022-23 state budget and beyond will either require deep cuts or substantial new revenues to maintain current spending levels.
The 2020-21 budget assumed that there would be a substantial loss of state General Funds due to the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The budget was passed using half of the Prop 2 Budget Stabilization reserves (aka Rainy Day Fund) and by assuming that the state would receive $14 billion from the federal government in the form of COVID relief by September 2020. Without that funding, the “trigger” mechanism would institute $14 billion in budget cuts.
Despite the fact that federal COVID relief did not arrive in September as projected, budget cuts have not been implemented. In late December, the federal government approved additional COVID relief, but much-needed funding for state and local governments was not included. The state did receive billions to address some COVID related costs, and to fund transportation, education and rental assistance. But in general, those funds cannot be used to fill holes in state budgets.
Fortunately, the deep recession did not result in the massive loss of state General Fund revenue that was predicted. Throughout the second half of 2020, state revenue coffers exceeded estimates by billions of dollars. This counterintuitive outcome reflects the growing impact of income inequality in California, where despite double digit unemployment, tax receipts continue to climb because the incomes of the wealthy are growing — most of the lost jobs were in low wage employment. Additionally, many of those who lost jobs received unemployment insurance that was supplemented by the federal CARES Act. Higher income workers largely did not suffer job losses, and many online enterprises saw substantial increases in profits leading to higher tax payments to the state.
Additionally, anticipated higher caseloads for health and human service programs did not materialize, resulting in lower state spending in the 2020-21 budget. By late November, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office projected a $26 billion surplus for the state. The Governor’s budget, however, is cautious, and pegs the surplus at $15 billion. But starting with the 2022-23 budget, the Governor projects that revenue will be more than $6 billion short of estimated expenses, and by the 2024-25 budget, the deficit could grow to $11 billion if no adjustments to spending or revenue are made.
The Governor is calling for “early action” by the Legislature on a package of assistance to respond to the COVID crisis. Among the items in the package are:
- $600 checks to all households receiving the state earned income tax credit. This would provide cash to approximately 4 million Californians.
- $575 million to small businesses and non-profits impacted by the COVID crisis.
- $2 billion in Prop 98 funds to safely re-open public schools starting with classes for the youngest children.
- $1.2 billion to help Californians with low incomes acquire green vehicles.
While this spending is welcome, it does not come close to meeting the needs of struggling Californians. Increased cash payments to the poorest Californians are needed now and should not be limited to those who have earnings from work. More state assistance is needed to ensure tenants are not saddled with debt that will decimate their credit and drive them further into poverty. The greatest public health crisis in memory is the time to provide health care for all.
The budget proposes a 1.5% increase in CalWORKs grants to begin October 1, 2021. The increase will bring the grant for a family of three to 49% of the federal poverty level or a maximum grant of $891 a month. This is similar to a proposed increase from last year’s budget that was dropped when the pandemic started. This funding is provided from the Child Poverty subaccount.
Overall spending on CalWORKs is declining to account for lower than anticipated caseload. The 2020-21 budget assumed the caseload would rise by more than 200,000 families. However, the increase was far more modest, resulting in an increase of about 50,000 cases. Thus, funding for the 2020-21 budget is proposed to be clawed back. Funding for 2021-22 is $600 million lower than the current year but a caseload increase to 480,000 families is funded in the budget.
- Total TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funding: $9.3 billion. This amount includes $7.4 billion for CalWORKs program expenditures and 1.9 billion in other programs.
- Average monthly caseload for CalWORKs is to be 482,436 2021 – 22, this is a 19% increase from last year.
- CalWORKs Time on Aid Exemption – $46.1 million one-time General Fund (TANF) block grant funding to temporarily suspend any month in which CalWORKs aid or services are received from counting towards the CalWORKs 48th month time based on a good cause exemption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- CalWorks Grant Increase – 1.5% increase to CalWORKs maximum aid payment levels effective October 1, 2021. $50.1 million in 2021 – 22. The increased grants costs are funded entirely by the Child Poverty and Family Supplemental Support Subaccounts of the Local Revenue Fund.
There is no SSP grant adjustment in the Governor’s budget. The budget describes the passing through of federal COLAs that are required under current federal law, but that is not an increase. Indeed, state spending for SSI is proposed to decline again, by an estimated $20 million. Yet again, as in past years, these “savings” are not re-invested into the program to benefit recipients who still have not had grant cuts restored from the last recession. The ongoing failure to address these cuts is unreasonable and unjust.
- $2.69 billion General Fund, a 0.6% decrease from last year’s budget.
- Monthly average case load is expected to be 1.18 million recipients this fiscal year, a 1.1% decrease.
$2.4 Billion in Earned Income Tax Credit Assistance
The Governor is proposing a one-time $600 increase in state Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) payments to families that receive CalEITC. With so many people in California struggling, and with many working families losing jobs or income from work, putting cash in people’s pockets is good for people experiencing poverty and good for the state economy. The Legislature may wish to consider increasing the size of the payments or providing more cash assistance to the lowest income families.
The Governor’s proposal will benefit more than four million California families, but it leaves out several million California households who do not have earnings from work. This includes CalWORKs families, virtually all SSI recipients, immigrants with neither SSNs or ITINs, people on General Assistance and many others who are unemployed. The Legislature should consider ways to provide assistance to all low income families and individuals.
- $30 million in one-time General Funding for emergency food assistance to food banks, tribes, and tribal organizations.
- Supplemental Nutrition Benefit and Transitional Nutrition Benefit Programs Adjustment – $22.3 million ongoing General Fund.
- California Food Assistance Program – $11.4 million in one-time General Funding for households to receive max allowable allotment based on household size.
- $10 million one-time General Funding to the Office of Farm to Fork’s Farm to School Program. Brings healthy food to schools and supports agriculture education, including school gardening, farms and cooking.
- $100 million in Prop 98 funds to address food and housing insecurity for community college students.
- Increase of $15 million ongoing General Fund to the CSU Graduation Initiative 2025 that targets students experiencing food and housing insecurity.
- $35 million ongoing from the General Fund for Cal Grants which will add 9,000 students to the Cal Grant awards, bringing the total to 50,000 awards.
- $24.9 million ($8.5 million General Fund) ongoing for local child support agencies to improve collections and services
- $23.8 million ($8.1 million General Fund) for local child support courts and state operations for child support funding.
The proposal includes $35 million one-time General Fund to support micro-grants of up to $10,000 seed funding. These grants are for underserved groups, including undocumented immigrants, to start small businesses.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE/ FINES & FEES
Online Traffic Court Adjudication Pilot
The Governor is proposing again to expand the traffic court online adjudication pilot program statewide. This pilot allows people to pay traffic tickets online rather than make an appearance in court. People with low incomes are given a minimum reduction of 50% of the fines, fees and assessments due to the court. It also allows them to get on a payment plan not to exceed $25 a month.
The proposal allots $12.3 million General Fund, increasing the total to $58.4 million ongoing General Fund by 2024-25, to expand the program statewide, and to include non-traffic infractions.
The Legislature chose not to move forward with the proposal last year and instead used the funding provided for the pilot to reduce criminal fees. Advocates also expressed concern about the design of the pilot and were seeking changes that would expand discounts to people with low incomes.
The Governor’s proposal takes a baseline approach to health care with no major expansions, including no proposal to expand Medi-Cal to undocumented elders or eliminate the harmful Medi-Cal assets test. The proposal resumes the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal initiative (CalAIM), which was put on hold due to the pandemic; expands Continuous Glucose Monitoring systems; extends suspension of Medi-Cal benefits and supplemental provider rates for 12 months; proposes one-time funding for behavioral health services, particularly for school-aged children; and takes further steps to implement the Master Plan on Aging.
- The Governor’s proposal assumes a 10.1% Medi-Cal case rate from 2019-20 to 2020-21 and 11.7% from 2020-21 to 2021-22, starting with nearly 14 million Californians and increasing to 15.6 million (peaking at 16.1 million in January 2022), representing nearly 40% of California’s population in 2021-22. The administration bases this estimate on continuous coverage requirements under federal law and a pandemic-induced recession, although enrollment numbers have not born out these projections.
- The proposal includes $12 million ($4.2 million General Fund) to add Continuous Glucose Monitoring systems as a Medi-Cal benefit for beneficiaries ages 21 and older with diabetes, effective January 1, 2022.
- The proposal implements the CalAIM initiative effective January 1, 2022, including $1.1 billion ($531.9 million General Fund) for FY 2021-22, growing to $1.5 billion ($755.5 million General Fund) in FY 2022-23. This investment follows the proposal that was put on hold last year.
- The proposal includes $750 million General Fund, available over three years, for DHCS to invest in critical gaps across the community-based behavioral health continuum, including the addition of at least 5,000 beds, units, or rooms. Funding would be made available to counties, requiring local funding match, via a competitive application process.
- The proposal includes $400 million ($200 million General Fund) one-time over multiple years to implement an incentive program through Medi-Cal managed care plans, in coordination with county behavioral health departments and schools, to build infrastructure, partnerships, and capacity statewide to increase the number of students receiving preventive and early intervention behavioral health services.
- The Governor’s proposal extends the suspension of Medi-Cal benefits, eligibility, and provider rates by 12 months. Specifically:
- Optional benefits restored in 2019 Budget, specifically audiology and speech therapy services, incontinence cream and washes, eyeglasses and contacts, and podiatric services, have been extended by 12 months to 12/31/2022 for a cost of $47 million ($15.6 million General Fund).
- The proposal delays the suspension of Medi-Cal post-partum extended eligibility by 12 months to 12/31/2022 for a cost of $27.1 million General Fund.
- Supplemental provider payments are also extended by 12 months to 6/30/2022 for a cost of $3.2 billion ($275.3 million General Fund, $717.8 million Prop 56 funds, and $2.2 billion in federal funds).
- Payments to intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled, freestanding pediatric subacute facilities, and Community Based Adult Services proposed to be extended to 12/31/2022 to align with managed care calendar rate year. The 7% IHSS hour cuts has also been proposed to be suspended to 12/31/2022.
- Supplemental payment for Women’s Health, Family Planning, the Loan Repayment program, behavioral health integration program, AIDS waiver, home health, and pediatric day health no longer subject to suspension.
- The proposal reflects last year’s announcement to postpone the carve-out of prescription drugs through Medi-Cal Rx to April 2021. Under revised estimates, Medi-Cal Rx is projected to result in less net savings of $612 million ($238.1 million General Fund) in FY 2021-22.
- The proposal makes permanent the restoration of adult over-the-counter cough/cold and acetaminophen drug benefits for savings of $21 million ($7.8 million General Fund) effective July 2021, although the waiver provided temporary reinstatement earlier as of March 2020.
- The proposal includes $94.8 million ($34 million General Fund) to make permanent and extend telehealth flexibilities, including implementing remote patient monitoring services as an allowable telehealth modality in fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care delivery systems.
- The proposal states the administration’s intention to focus on health disparities and cultural and language competency through health plan contractual language.
Other Health Proposals
- The proposal includes $11.2 million in 2020-21 and $24.5 million in 2022-23 to establish the Office of Health Care Affordability, which is charged with increasing cost and quality transparency, developing cost targets for the health care industry, enforcing compliance, and filing gaps in market oversight. The Office will be under the newly created Department of Health Care Affordability and Infrastructure, which will also house the current Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.
- The proposal provides $25 million in one-time Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds over five years, for the oversight and accountability commission to augment the mental health student services act partnership grant; $25M ongoing Prop 98 General Fund to fund partnerships and county behavioral health departments to support student mental health.
- The proposal provides $750M in one-time General Funding for competitive grants to counties to acquire and rehabilitate real estate assets to expand the community continuum of behavioral health treatment resources.
- The proposal establishes a new Office of Medicare Innovation and Integration that will explore strategies and models to strengthen and expand low and middle income Californians access to services and supports, while developing new partnerships with federal government.
- The administration will appoint a senior advisor on Aging, Disability, and Alzheimer’s to advance cross-Cabinet initiatives and partnerships; $5 million General Fund to further implement Master Plan on Aging; $3 million one-time General Fund for OSHPD to grow and diversify geriatric medicine workforce.
- In response to the pandemic, the proposal includes $300 million as an initial estimate for vaccine distribution, including a public awareness campaign.
The Governor’s budget proposal includes important investments to address California’s existing housing crisis at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic is making the crisis worse for low-wage workers and communities of color. The proposal builds on recent efforts to provide stability to at-risk households and invest in programs that will aid economic recovery, and increase the supply and production of very low, low, and moderate income housing. In total, the Governor proposes more than $8 billion in housing resources.
Preventing Evictions and Foreclosures
Last August, the Legislature enacted AB 3088 to create strong statewide eviction protections for tenants unable to pay rent due to hardship caused by COVID-19. The bill extended rental protections to January 31st, 2021 to forestall an incoming wave of evictions. The administration is seeking an immediate extension of AB 3088 beyond January 31, 2021 to allow the state to use federal resources to assist those with arrears, rent, and utilities so families and individuals with low incomes stay housed. The budget includes $11.7 million one-time General Funds for trial courts to process the anticipated increase in unlawful detainer and small claims filings resulting from AB 3088.
The Governor is relying on the federal COVID-19 relief bill that was enacted in late December, which will allocate $2.6 billion in rental relief funds to California. Rental assistance will be dispersed between the state and local governments with an estimated $1.4 billion going to the state and $1.2 billion to local jurisdictions with populations over 200,000. The federal program includes eligibility parameters related to eligible use of funds as well as income parameters, with the primary focus of the rental assistance to support individuals and households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI), with a priority for individuals and households with less than 50% AMI.
National Mortgage Settlement Program
In the 2020-2021 budget, the California Housing Finance Authority allocated $331 million in National Mortgage Settlement funds to prevent foreclosures and evictions. Last year, the Judicial Council provided $31 million of those funds to local legal service organizations, with the California Housing Finance Authority (CalHFA) recently providing the remaining amount to 90 certified housing counselors throughout California. CalHFA plans to continue to provide mortgage assistance in 2021-22.
The Budget proposes $2 million General Fund dollars for the Department of Fair Employment and Housing to prosecute violations of anti-housing discrimination laws and to conduct surveys and education and outreach campaigns.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
The budget proposes a third round of $500 million in tax credits to reduce funding gaps in affordable housing units. These tax credits will be administered by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee, and the California Business Consumer Services and Housing Agency.
Excess State Land Development
The Governor is proposing statutory changes to allow market-rate and commercial development on excess state land.
In an effort to align housing development with workforce development, the budget proposes $8.5 million General Fund to expend access to state-approved construction apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships that will result in approximately 650 jobs.
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
$500 million in General Fund dollars is included to create jobs and increase long-term housing development to further a more equitable housing supply in a post-COVID-19 housing market. This includes $250 million in the current fiscal year and $250 million in fiscal year 2021-22.
Expanded Facilities to Support Housing
To further the goal of ending homelessness in California, the Governor’s budget includes $250 million for the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) and Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE). These funds will support physical upgrades and capital improvements.
To accelerate the work on providing permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness and stop the spread of COVID-19 among this vulnerable population, the Governor is allocating $750 million to extend the program. $250 million is allotted for the current year (2020-21), and $500 million for fiscal year 2021-22. This will be administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Americans and Californians have made it through another election, with big implications for the country’s future. Western Center extends a hearty congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden and California’s own, Kamala Harris, who will step into history as this country’s first Black American, Asian American, and woman to hold the office of Vice President of the United States. As a nonpartisan organization working toward racial justice in California and the United States, we cannot overstate the significance of this moment as part of the continued march toward a true representative government that reflects the population it serves.
Here in California, we voted on several important races and propositions on our 2020 ballot. Below is Western Center’s analysis of what some of those propositions mean for the future of California, and for the people we serve.
First, we must state our position that the California proposition system is incredibly flawed and fundamentally unjust. While popular vote sounds democratic, our proposition system allows wealthy interests to dictate and manipulate state law, often without full disclosure to voters, and at the expense of the most disenfranchised and marginalized people in our state and country. We believe the legislative process is the appropriate place for creating sound policy, not the proposition system.
|PROPOSITION 15: Schools and Communities First – FAILED
Western Center supported Proposition 15, widely referred to as the property tax split roll, as an attempt to make headway in the fight to make California’s tax laws more just, and to chip away at the foundation that makes the state so economically unequal. In 1978, voters approved Prop 13, which limited property taxes on all property owners — commercial and residential, by capping taxes at 1.1 percent of the value of the property at the time it was purchased. While Prop 13 is often viewed as untouchable politically, it is a major source of wealth inequality and a prime example of structural racism, because it keeps taxes permanently low for those who are long time property owners (overwhelmingly white), but imposes a higher tax on those who bought property more recently (increasingly people of color). Prop 15’s failure means the unjust tax implications of Prop 13 remain untouched, and wealth distribution in California remains lopsided. At a time when significant revenue is needed to address the affordable housing crisis, homelessness, and improved public benefits programs, this is a significant loss in the fight for a more equal California.
|PROPOSITION 16: Repeal Ban on Affirmative Action – FAILED
Western Center heartily supported this measure, and frankly, we are very disappointed with this outcome because of the unfortunate message it sends to California’s increasingly diverse population. Prop 16 would have reversed a 1996 initiative that banned affirmative action (the practice of establishing certain criteria that allows consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting) in all forms of state and local government. In practice, affirmative action is intended to level the playing field and reduce the effects of explicit and implicit bias. California, like the rest of the United States, was formed on a foundation of explicit white supremacy and patriarchy in law and society, which means active policies are required to obtain balance. The failure of Prop 16 this year means that the fight for true racial equity is more of an uphill battle in California than this progressive state would like to believe.
|PROPOSITION 17: Right to Vote for People Who Were Formerly Incarcerated – PASSED
Western Center supported this measure, which restores the right to vote to Californians with a prior felony criminal conviction, provided they are not incarcerated. The additional punishment leveraged by state law before the passage of Prop 17 deprived 50,000 Californians of a fundamental right of all citizens. Western Center supported the measure because as we know from our work, the history of racism in our country has led to over-policing in communities of color, which means the pre-Prop 17 law unjustly dilutes their voting power.
|PROPOSITION 18: Right to register to vote at age 17 – FAILED
Western Center supported Prop 18, which would have allowed eligible 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the next November general election to vote. Western Center supported Prop 18 because studies that show that pro-voting initiatives like this one encourage greater voter participation among young people, which is crucial for engaging younger generations into the political process, and because we think people who are old enough to vote in November should have the opportunity to make the initial choice for the November ballot in the primaries, even if they’re still 17. If the historic, high level of voter turnout among young people this year tells us anything, it’s that initiatives like this are likely to come back, because young people want their voices to be heard.
|PROPOSITION 20: Restores Crimes and Limits Early Release – FAILED
Western Center opposed Prop 20, which would have reinstated certain theft crimes as felonies instead of misdemeanors, and made it harder for people convicted of felonies to be approved for parole. It also would have expanded collection of DNA samples from people charged with crimes, and from youth. The failure of this measure sends a strong statement to California policy makers that voters are satisfied with the reforms already passed, and suggests that they are ready for more. We are pleased with this outcome and know that it will lead to increased support for further criminal justice reform efforts.
|PROPOSITION 21: Reduce State Limits on Local Rent Control – FAILED
Western Center supported Prop 21, which proposed several changes to a state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Act, limiting ability of local governments to control the cost of rental housing, by allowing rent control on units older than 15 years and allowing local governments to restrict rent increases on units when a tenant moves out. Western Center has never supported Costa-Hawkins and was a major opponent to the policy for the past 25 years. A measure similar to Prop 21 failed in 2018, and since then there has been a spike in rent across California and significant increases in homelessness. With COVID-19 causing many tenants to be unable to pay the high cost of rent in California, it is necessary to pass meaningful limits on rental housing costs. The failure of this measure marks yet another setback in the fight for more affordable housing in California and to keep people housed when they are on the brink of homelessness. The Legislature must address this issue, or the state will continue to see increases in homelessness.
|PROPOSITION 22: Repeals Worker Protections for App-based Rideshare Workers – PASSED
Western Center opposed Prop 22. This proposition repeals a portion of Assembly Bill 5, which was passed by the Legislature last year to require that companies employing so called “independent contractors” instead classify workers as employees. When workers are classified as employees, companies must provide basic worker protections like unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, health coverage, minimum wage, sick pay, overtime and social security. Western Center supported AB 5 because many app-based workers are not receiving a fair wage or minimum worker protections. When they can’t work, they’re often left with nothing, and as a result, they sometimes end up on public assistance and in crisis, as the companies they work for experience record profit. Income inequality is one of the most important issues of our time; the average pay of corporate CEOs is now 321 times more than the typical worker they employ, and the use of independent contractors is accelerating that trend by allowing companies to keep money normally used to provide basic employment services for themselves.
Western Center is strongly opposed to Prop 22, and we are disheartened that it passed for a number of reasons. App-based companies leveraged a multi-million-dollar campaign to draft and pass this initiative so they don’t have to provide basic worker protections, which is money they could have used to provide those protections. Uber also used that money to defend against a lawsuit brought by drivers claiming the company coerced them into supporting the measure. The way the Prop 22 campaign played out exemplifies the deep flaws with California’s proposition system, which allows wealthy interests to dictate and manipulate state law. As long as there is money to spend, those interests can play fast and loose with their claims and campaign messages, to the detriment of people who don’t have the same means.
|PROPOSITION 24: Use of Personal Data by Private Business – PASSED
This measure, which Western Center opposed, makes changes to California law regarding how personal information collected by corporations and data firms can be used and shared. It overrides elements of a 2018 “landmark” privacy law that limited the use of data sharing. Prop 24 allows data collectors to use “neighborhood scores” in determining a person’s credit worthiness, which means a person’s credit could be lower because of the community they live in. Prop 24 also reduces the number of companies subject to the law. It takes regulation for privacy breaches away from the state Attorney General and shifts it to a newly created state agency with capped funding. Western Center was against Prop 24, along with a host of consumer organizations. We support strong consumer protections, but believe the legislative process, not the proposition process, is the appropriate forum for making changes to state law.
|PROPOSITION 25: Repeal State Law Eliminating Money Bail – FAILED
Prop 25’s failure overturns Senate Bill 10, which passed the California Legislature in 2018 and would have eliminated the use of money bail in California in determining who is detained in jail pending a trial to determine their guilt or innocence. Western Center was a co-sponsor of SB 10 because the money bail system benefits those with wealth, while people with fewer resources (again, disproportionately people of color) often languish in jail for lengthy periods of time, losing jobs, housing, family, health and sometimes life while in jail. To avoid these consequences, people will often accept a plea deal rather than fight for their innocence in order to be released.
Western Center was a strong supporter of Prop 25, and we are frustrated by its failure. We understand the very real concerns about replacing money bail with the “risk assessment” algorithm system, as there is noted bias in that system, but risk assessment tools are already used in 44 California counties in addition to money bail. What’s more, Western Center sponsored Senate Bill 36, which will be enacted in 2021, to require that any risk assessment used by a court be certified as bias-free. Independent research on Prop 25 found that it would keep thousands of people out of jail pre-trial, and would end the collection of $6 Billion in bail bonds from Californians with little to no wealth. Prop 25 also would have eliminated the bail bonds lobby, which contributes to pro-incarceration measures like Prop 20. The California Supreme Court is currently deliberating two cases in which the plaintiffs claim that the state and federal constitutions prohibit a trial court from setting bail in amounts that criminal defendants are unable to pay. We hope the Court will require lower courts to prevent incarceration of someone pending their trial simply because they can’t afford bail.
“Mike Herald, policy director with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said cash bail is very punitive for low-income defendants.
“Many people ended up getting held in jail for months on end simply because they didn’t have the money to be able to get out on bail,” Herald said. “And then other folks who did get out on bail often were stuck with very large bills.”
In California’s money bail system, people brought to jail on charges of a misdemeanor or felony offence are required to pay money to secure release as they await trial. What that means in practice is that people with money get out of jail, and people without it don’t. But sitting in jail isn’t like waiting at the DMV – jail is, more often than not, a deeply traumatizing experience. Sometimes even deadly.
The amount of money a person can access shouldn’t determine whether the state gets to inflict irreparable harm on them via incarceration. That’s why Western Center supports Proposition 25 to end money bail in California.
Here’s how money bail works…
People who can pay the full bail amount pay directly to the court, which averages around $50,000, and they get it all back when they show up for court. People who can’t pay the full bail fall into two categories: (1) people who can scrape together enough, sometimes through friends and family, to pay a bail agent for a bail bond — usually about 10 percent of the bail amount; and (2) people who don’t have or know anyone with 10 percent of the bail amount and are held in jail until trial. It’s estimated that on any given day, nearly 50,000 Californians end up in this second category — accused of a crime, not convicted, but still sitting in jail because they can’t afford to pay.
For people with just enough to purchase a bail bond, even when they return to court to face their charges, they don’t get their money back since bail bonds are usually nonrefundable. That’s true even when charges are dropped or a person is determined to be innocent.
A Yes vote on Proposition 25 will end money bail in California, and restore $6 billion to low-wealth California communities that are preyed upon by the bail industry. Ending money bail will remove judicial discretion for people charged with most misdemeanors and require that they be sent home in under 13 hours, which we hope will encourage closer examination of who is arrested for misdemeanors, and whether certain misdemeanors should exist in the first place (for example, being “boisterous” on a bus can be a misdemeanor in California).
These are difficult conversations to have in California’s capitol, where $3 million in bail industry profits were used to help elect legislators who oppose not only repealing money bail, but also the reduction of pre-trial detention and the carceral state. Because of that, the legislature is squeamish on this issue, so Prop 25 could be the last opportunity California has for a long time to end money bail and work toward a more just system.
The $6 billion dollar California Money Bail industry preys on low-income communities, and impacts Black and Brown people and communities most. Nationally, Black people are detained at a rate five times higher than white people,[i] and Black defendants are less likely to be released on their own recognizance than white defendants.[ii] Black defendants ages 18 through 29 also receive higher bail amounts than any other group.[iii] It’s all made worse because Black Americans have A LOT less wealth to begin with, so Black people charged with a crime — whether a misdemeanor or a felony — are much more likely to have to stay in jail while waiting for trial, which increases the likelihood of conviction or going into debt with a bail agent.
In California, the billions of dollars the bail industry takes from people with little to no wealth translates to money people can’t spend on basic needs, education, health, or any other resource to get out of poverty. What’s worse, since people often borrow from friends and family to pay their bond, it can create conflict and tension within families, complicating already difficult situations. Sometimes, families have to put up their home, if they have one, for collateral to a bail agent to secure freedom for their loved one, which undermines homeownership and asset building in low-income communities of color.
For people without enough wealth or access for bail, and even with a bail bond, a stay in jail can be lengthy. It should surprise no one that jail is a dangerous and inhospitable place, where people endure sexual assault and other forms of abuse from guards and other people who are incarcerated, and where maintaining one’s health, including mental health, is difficult, if not impossible. Additionally, people held in jail while awaiting trial are more likely to have immigration officials called on them. But that’s not all: other life-altering consequences experienced by people in jail waiting for their trial include losing their homes, their cars, their children or other people they care for, their jobs, their health and so much more. As a result, many plead guilty for crimes they didn’t commit just so they can leave jail rather than wait for trial.
The money bail system is used in many ways that perversely perpetuates the criminalization of poverty. Prosecutors often ask judges to detain individuals with a high bail as leverage to convince people with low-incomes to enter a plea bargain.[iv] To give a sense of how big the problem is, in 2006, 96 percent of convictions were the result of guilty pleas — only four percent of convictions resulted from actual trials.[v] People incarcerated while awaiting trial are more likely to be convicted (even when innocent); receive harsher sentences, including more time in jail or prison; face injury or contract a serious (and costly) disease; and are more likely to return to the criminal justice system in the future.[vi]
Some critics of Proposition 25 are concerned that too much power will be placed within the computerized risk assessment tools that are to replace money bail. We are concerned about that too, which is why we sponsored Senate Bill 36 last year to require race and equity data to be collected, shared with the public, and monitored to mitigate racial bias in each risk assessment tool. Between the requirements set in Proposition 25 and SB 36, California will have some of the most robust protections against racially-biased decision making for pre-trial detention in the country, and we will be the first to end all monetary conditions of pre-trial release. Wealth is one of the most racist algorithms that exists in America, and one of the most fixed. Proposition 25 is an essential step forward in making our pre-trial decisions less racially biased.
We know that even after Proposition 25 passes, we have a lot of work to do to ensure it is implemented with diligence and equity, and that we continue to build a more just pre-trial system that treats everyone as innocent until proven guilty. Western Center is committed to this work in strong partnership with the system-impacted-person led organizations leading the way.
Please join us and leaders across the state in voting Yes on Proposition 25. Go to https://yesoncaprop25.com/ for more information and read the text of the proposed law. Video panels are also available on the subject: Prop 25 Community Forum Recording (SEIU); Yes on Prop 25 (Anti-Recidivism Coalition); Yes on Prop 25 (Yes on 25 Campaign).
[i]JUSTICE POL’Y INST., supra note XX, at 15.
[ii] JOHN WOOLDREDGE, DISTINGUISHING RACE EFFECTS ON PRETRIAL RELEASE AND SENTENCING DECISIONS, JUSTICE QUARTERLY, 29 (2012).
[iii] JOHN WOOLDREDGE, supra note 9, at 29.
[iv] JUSTICE POL’Y INST., 25
[v] Cal.STATE COURT PROCESSING, FELONY DEFENDANTS IN LARGE URBAN COUNTIES REPORTS 1992-2006
[vi] ARPIT GUPTA, CHRISTOPHER HANSMAN, & ETHAN FRENCHMAN, THE HEAVY COSTS OF HIGH BAIL: EVIDENCE FROM JUDGE RANDOMIZATION 2 (2016); LAURA & JOHN ARNOLD FOUND, PRETRIAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH 3 (2013).
Californians are voting on important propositions on the 2020 California ballot right now. We know it’s confusing, so below you’ll find our guide to the propositions. All of our work, and how we see these propositions, centers around creating greater economic and racial justice, especially for people in California oppressed by poverty.
*For a PDF of this document, click here.
PROPOSITION 14: $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Research Bond
Western Center Position: No Position
|PROPOSITION 15: Schools and Communities First
Prop 15 is widely referred to as the property tax split roll. In 1978, voters approved Prop 13 which limited property taxes on all property owners, both commercial and residential, by capping taxes at 1.1 percent of the value of the property at the time it was purchased. While Prop 13 is often viewed as untouchable politically, in truth it is a major source of wealth inequality and a prime example of structural racism, because it keeps taxes permanently low for those who are long time property owners (overwhelmingly white), but imposes a higher tax on those who bought property more recently (increasingly people of color). Prop 15 would not fix all the problems created by Prop 13 but it would fix one, by setting commercial property taxes based on the current value of the property, not the original sale price. This would increase property taxes by $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion annually. 60 percent of this would go to cities, counties, and special districts and 40 percent would go to schools.
Western Center Position: YES
Prop 15 would take the first step toward restoring fairness to California’s property tax system. It would provide significant revenue which can be used for affordable housing, eliminating homelessness, and providing public benefits. It would increase funding for K-14 schools. It would make it easier for new business to compete with established businesses by making all businesses pay taxes based on market rates.
|PROPOSITION 16: Repeal Ban on Affirmative Action
This measure would reverse a 1996 initiative approved by California voters to ban the use of affirmative action in all forms of state and local government. Affirmative action is the practice of establishing certain criteria that allows consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting. The goal of affirmative action is to ensure that all people, regardless of their background, have a meaningful opportunity to benefit from government programs. In practice, affirmative action is intended to level the playing field and reduce the effects of explicit and implicit bias.
Western Center Position: YES
Western Center supported the bill when it was under consideration in the Legislature because it is consistent with our long standing principles of ensuring that California is an inclusive and equitable state. California, like the rest of the United States, was formed on a foundation of explicit white supremacy and patriarchy in law and society, which means active policies are required to obtain balance. The more that all segments of our community have the opportunity to receive the benefits of government, the less likely it is that bias will continue to be prevalent.
Western Center staff attorney Helen Tran explains more in this blog post.
|PROPOSITION 17: Right to Vote for People Who Were Formerly Incarcerated
This measure would allow Californians with a prior felony criminal conviction to be able to vote in California. Currently, a person convicted of a felony cannot vote while incarcerated or on parole. If a formerly incarcerated person on parole registers to vote or votes, that can be grounds to revoke their parole and return them to prison, even if they are otherwise abiding by all other terms of their parole. The current law acts as an additional punishment on the formerly incarcerated after they have served their time and deprives them of a fundamental right of all citizens.
Western Center Position: YES
Western Center supported this bill when it went through the Legislature because current law disenfranchises people from exercising the fundamental right to vote. As we know from our work, the history of racism in our country has led to over-policing of communities of color. Thus, this law disproportionally impacts Black and Brown communities and dilutes their voting power.
|PROPOSITION 18: Right to register to vote at age 17
As it currently stands, a person can register to vote in California if they’re a U.S. citizen at least 18 years old and a resident of the state. Registered voters can also run for elective office as long as they meet all other eligibility requirements. A person can pre-register to vote when they are either 16 or 17 years old. When a person pre-registers, they are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18. If passed, Prop 18 would allow eligible 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the next November general election to vote. Those 17-year-olds could vote in any special election or primary election before the next general election. The measure also means that 17-year-olds who turn 18 by the next general election could run for office if they meet all other eligibility requirements.
Western Center Position: YES
People decide who will be on the November ballot in primaries earlier in the year. People old enough to vote in November should have the opportunity to make that initial choice for the November ballot in the primaries, even if they’re still 17. There are also studies that show that pro-voting initiatives like this encourage greater voter participation among young people, which is crucial for engaging younger generations into the political process.
|PROPOSITION 19: Change in Property Tax Rule
This initiative makes changes to property taxes when people move or inherit property. Currently, persons over age 55 and those living with disabilities can move to another home and not see their taxes go up if the new property is equal to or less than the house they moved from. This initiative would expand the ability of older and disabled property owners to move and not pay higher taxes. It limits the ability of people to inherit property unless an inheriting family member lives at the property or if the property is worth more than $1 million more than the assessed value of the house. Overall, the measure would result in increased revenue of tens of millions annually. This revenue would go to fire protection and schools.
Western Center Position: No Position
While this measure would result in some increased revenue it would not provide meaningful resources for health, welfare and housing programs. Proponents have asked Western Center to support but most major progressive groups are not supporting the measure.
|PROPOSITION 20: Restores Crimes and Limits Early Release
This initiative proposes to repeal portions of criminal reform initiatives passed by voters (Prop 47 in 2014 and Prop 57 in 2016). If approved, Prop 20 would reinstate certain theft crimes as felonies instead of misdemeanors, and make it harder for people convicted of felonies to be approved for parole. It also expands collection of DNA samples from people charged with crimes, and from youth.
Western Center Position: NO
This measure would disproportionally and negatively impact people of color and low income Californians. In a time when large segments of the population are seeking a reduced criminal justice footprint, this initiative is moving in the opposite direction. Increasing the number of people with felony convictions will harm individuals, communities, and ultimately, our entire society, by making reentry into community much harder. It’s harder to get a job and find a place to live with a felony conviction, and as it stands now and unless Prop 17 passes, people with felony convictions who are in prison or on parole can’t vote. This initiative will needlessly place more people into these oppressive circumstances, exacerbating California’s existing income and racial inequality and its housing/ homelessness crises, which means greater instability for our state.
|PROPOSITION 21: Reduce State Limits on Local Rent Control
This measure proposes to make several changes to a state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Act. That law strictly limits how local governments can control the cost of rental housing. It bars rent control on most single family homes, bars rent control on units built after 1995, and allows landlords to increase rent on a unit whenever a tenant moves out. Western Center was a major opponent of this law when it was proposed and has remained so for the past 25 years. Prop 21 proposes to modify the Costa Hawkins Act by allowing rent control on units that are older than 15 years, including some single family homes, and it allows local governments to restrict rent increases on units when a tenant moves out.
Western Center Position: YES
A similar measure was on the 2018 ballot but failed. Since then there has been a spike in rent across California and significant increases in homelessness. With COVID-19 causing many tenants to be unable to pay the high cost of rent in California, it is necessary to pass meaningful limits on rental housing costs.
|PROPOSITION 22: Repeals Worker Protections for App-based Rideshare Workers
This measure proposes to repeal a portion of AB 5 that was passed by the Legislature last year to require that companies employing so called “independent contractors” instead classify workers as employees. Doing so means the companies must provide basic worker protections like unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, health coverage, minimum wage, sick pay, overtime and social security. Large internet based corporations like Lyft, Uber, and Door Dash are proposing to eliminate these protections provided in AB 5. Western Center supported the bill because many drivers for these companies are not receiving a fair wage or minimum worker protections. When they are unable to drive, they are often left with nothing because as independent contractors, their employers are not required to pay into these systems. As a result, they often end up on public assistance and in crisis, meanwhile the companies experience record profit. Prop 22 would allow workers to remain independent contractors, and proposes that in lieu of traditional employee benefits, rideshare workers receive a menu of watered down worker protections.
Western Center Position: NO
Income inequality is quickly becoming one of the most important issues of our time. The average pay of corporate CEOs is now 321 times more than the typical worker they employ. The use of independent contractors is accelerating this trend by allowing companies to keep money normally used to provide basic employment services for themselves. App based companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to pass Prop 22, which is money they could be spending on basic worker protections, since workers make the companies possible.
|PROPOSITION 23: Kidney Dialysis Requirements
Western Center Position: No Position
|PROPOSITION 24: Use of Personal Data by Private Business
This measure makes a host of changes to California law regarding how personal information collected by corporations and data firms can be used and shared. This bill overrides elements of a 2018 “landmark” privacy law that limited the use of data sharing. Significantly, Prop 24 allows data collectors to use “neighborhood scores” in determining a person’s credit worthiness, which means a person’s credit could be lower because of the community they live in. Prop 24 reduces the number of companies subject to the law. It takes regulation for privacy breaches away from the state Attorney General and shifts it to a newly created state agency with capped funding. It also limits the ability of the Legislature to decide how penalties collected by the state can be used by earmarking most penalty funds away from the General Fund.
Western Center Position: NO
A host of consumer organizations are opposing this measure and they have asked Western Center to join them in opposing. Some background context: a wealthy developer named Alastair Mctagart pulled a privacy initiative off the ballot in 2018 after the Legislature passed a privacy bill; he then submitted a new initiative that both strengthens and weakens the existing law. Western Center supports strong consumer protections and believes the legislative process, not the proposition process, is the appropriate forum for making changes to the law.
|PROPOSITION 25: Repeal State Law Eliminating Money Bail
Prop 25 is a referendum to overturn a bill, SB 10, which was passed in 2018 by the Legislature to eliminate the use of the money bail system in California. Under the money bail system, judges allow people to be released from jail before trial if they pay a bond to secure their appearance at trial. Many people can’t afford bond and turn to bail bonds agencies to pay; people are then required to pay the agency 10 percent of the bond amount. That amount is non-refundable even if the person is acquitted or the charges are dropped. Data shows that the money bail system benefits those with wealth who can afford their own bail, while people with fewer resources often languish in jail for lengthy periods of time. In 2018 the Legislature passed SB 10 to eliminate this system and replace it with a system of release based on a “risk assessment” tool. Under this bill, the financial resources of the accused are not a factor in their release. Western Center was a co-sponsor of SB 10.
Western Center Position: YES
To support the bill that was passed to eliminate money bail, a person must vote “Yes.” The referendum is essentially asking you to consider this as if you were a legislator deciding to support the bill. Western Center co-sponsored SB 10, and now urges a “Yes” vote for Prop 25. We understand the very real concerns about replacing money bail with the “risk assessment” algorithm system, as there is noted bias in that system. However, we feel it’s likely that this is the only real opportunity to eliminate money bail in California, which disproportionately harms communities of color. If Prop 25 passes, it will be easier to address imperfections in the algorithm system than it will be to get the Legislature to take up ending money bail again.
Western Center policy advocate Jessica Bartholow explains more in this blog post.
Federal funding for legal services began as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty. With the legislative successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, people living in poverty needed lawyers to access the courts and assert their newfound rights.
New legal services groups sprouted up across the country, and existing privately-funded programs expanded; both were very successful at serving thousands of low-income folks and winning cases. Before 1965, no legal aid case made it to the Supreme Court, but following federal investment in legal services, over 200 cases made it to the high court, and legal services won most of them.
From the outset of the program, that success drew ire of both corporate and political interests over the continued funding for legal aid. For example, in 1969 then-California Governor Ronald Reagan attempted to defund California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) because of its success in court against corporate dairy farmers and the state. Reagan’s attempt failed spectacularly when a commission of three state Supreme Court justices, all Republicans, vindicated CRLA against all 127 charges.
When most of the war on poverty was dismantled, the legal services program survived. The last bill President Nixon signed into law before resigning in 1974 established the Legal Services Corporation, which remains the largest source of funding for the nation’s legal aid programs.
But old animosities did not die. When Reagan was elected President, his administration tried to eliminate funding for LSC altogether. When this effort was thwarted by bi-partisan support for legal services, he appointed extremists to govern the national program. This had a very real effect of limiting legal aid groups in their ability to challenge an unjust status quo. Further, it kept legal service organizations battling to maintain funding – diverting time and energy from fighting poverty. Western Center’s successful case against the Legal Services Corporation for its arbitrary denial of funding in 1984 is one example of such a battle.
Then, in 1995, the Newt Gingrich-led Congress eliminated federal funding for national and state support centers like Western Center, and imposed additional restrictions on LSC funding with the clear intent of preventing legal aid groups from seeking systemic change.
These are some of the restrictions that have been imposed on LSC organizations through the years: (1) no class actions, eliminating the major procedural mechanism to represent masses of people wronged by an entity; (2) severe restrictions on legislative and administrative advocacy; (3) no organizing; (4) no representation of undocumented immigrants; (5) no representation in cases involving voting redistricting; (6) no representation of people facing eviction from public housing based on a drug conviction; (7) no civil representation of prisoners; (8) no cases seeking statutory attorneys’ fees, a restriction that lasted from 1995-2009; (9) no school desegregation cases; (10) no abortion cases; and (11) no litigation or other advocacy “involving an effort to reform a Federal or State welfare system.”
Perhaps worst of all, most of these restrictions apply not just to the federal funds received by programs, but also to money received from other sources, such as private donations. In other words, legal services attorneys, who represent clients in need of the most aggressive and creative representation, are faced with restrictions not imposed on any other members of the legal profession.
It’s evident that these restrictions are designed to preserve power and eliminate the opportunity for people experiencing poverty to access real justice. Limited funding (and for a long time, limited ability for legal aid groups to seek attorney’s fees in cases they won) keeps legal aid attorneys chronically under-resourced, overworked, and underpaid. The prohibitions on class actions and restrictions on lobbying are intended to prevent legal aid firms from addressing systemic issues faced by the broadest numbers of people living in poverty, like institutional racism and residential segregation. All of these restrictions serve as dog whistles at best, targeted dehumanization to keep people in poverty at worst.
We are proud to partner with advocates in LSC-funded programs who, despite restrictions, work daily miracles for their clients. Imagine what these creative and talented advocates could do if they did not have one hand tied behind their backs.
2020 has been an unusual year, and the California legislative session was no exception — everyone from legislators to advocates had to adjust to the year’s challenges. Western Center started the year with 38 bills, but due to COVID-19, the Legislature significantly narrowed the number of bills. Even so, our advocates worked tirelessly to make sure people with low incomes are protected in California law, both during the pandemic and after it’s over. Here is a roundup of our sponsored and co-sponsored bills – those that passed, and some we will bring back next year.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE & PUBLIC BENEFITS
- SB 144 (Mitchell)/AB 1869 (Budget Committee) to repeal state law authorizing specified criminal justice fees. The bill was parked and we moved the language into a trailer bill which repealed 23 of the criminal justice fees and expunged an estimated $16 Billion in outstanding debt associated with these fees. We achieved this historic, first in the country victory in coordination with the Debt Free Justice Coalition.
- SB 1290 (Durazo and Mitchell) to require counties to stop collecting juvenile fees assessed before 2018. Our sponsored bill SB 190 stopped new debt from accumulating after that date, but did not eliminate existing debt. We are now the first state in the country to completely eliminate juvenile fees, which is an important step in state disinvestment in the carceral system.
- SB 1409 (Caballero) requires the Franchise Tax Board to analyze and develop a plan to implement a “no return” tax filing pilot program to increase the number of claims of the CalEITC (California Earned Income Tax Credit).
- SB 1065 (Hertzberg) to make specified changes to the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program. This bill is a favorite of public benefit legal services programs, and bookends about four years’ worth of legislation. Currently, domestic violence impacted CalWORKs recipients have 16 days of a hotel voucher and another 16 days if an application is still pending. SB 1065 extends the 32 days to everyone regardless of whether or not their application was approved. It also allows for the repeal of an asset test of $100 on the program; allows rental assistance to cover first, last, and deposit (rather than just first and deposit); allows a sworn statement by family to verify that a family is homeless rather than requiring county verification; and eliminates responsibility of the client to return to the county every four days to verify homelessness. It also improves disaster provisions by making eligibility conditioned upon a family becoming homeless as a direct and primary result of a state or federal declared disaster (including pandemic).
- AB 3073 (Wicks) to require the Department of Social Services to issue guidance on the allowable practices to maximize CalFresh eligibility for people leaving jail or prison. Click here for a copy of a report we published on this topic.
- AB 2325 (Carrillo) would restore Section 4007.5 of the Family Code with a 3 year sunset. This law was allowed to sunset last year, requiring child support order suspensions to be process manually for people who are incarcerated over 90 days, rather than have them automatically suspended. We worked in coalition on this bill with Truth and Justice in Child Support.
*Budget Bills we supported in coalition:
- Ending exclusion of ITIN tax filers in CalEITC.
- Institute Homestead Act protections against home loss during bankruptcy, and to establish a new state entity charged with licensing debt collectors and protecting consumers from abusive and illegal debt collection practices.
- Restored CalWORKs assistance to the full 60 months permitted under federal law beginning in 2022.
- Expanded the amount of child support payments CalWORKs families can keep from $50 a month to $100 a month for one child, and up to $200 for two or more children.
- AB 2520 (Chiu) will increase access to public benefit programs by requiring doctors to complete forms and make it easier to obtain medical records for people in need of benefits programs.
- Watch Western Center health advocate Linda Nguy explain more here.
- AB 2276 (Reyes) would implement the California Auditor’s recommendations to increase blood lead screenings of children on Medi-Cal, as already mandated, and would require the Department of Public Health to update risk factors for evaluating risk of lead poisoning.
- AB 3088 (Chiu) – AB 1482 Clean-Up: cleans up a number of confusing provisions in last year’s AB 1482, which limited rent increases and required just cause for evictions for tenants in multifamily properties over 15 years old. The bill was also amended during the last week of the legislative session to include a negotiated compromise around protecting tenants from eviction due to COVID through January 2021. That portion of the bill did not have sponsors.
A few bills that didn’t pass this year, but will be back in 2021
- SB 1399 (Durazo) to address wage theft in California’s garment industry. It failed to make it out of the Legislature this year, in spite of a remarkable grassroots efforts by workers and advocates, and despite the fact that many of the workers experiencing wage theft are the same essential workers who have been sewing masks during the pandemic. Our coalition, led by LA’s Garment Worker Center, will bring the bill back next year.
- AB 683 (Carrillo) to fix Medi-Cal’s restrictive asset test, which only applies to elders and people with disabilities, was held in committee despite broad community support. The current extremely low limit on allowable assets forces many of the same people most susceptible to COVID-19 to choose between health care and saving for an emergency. We will keep fighting to change that next year.
- AB 826 (Santiago) would have provided emergency food assistance for Californians who are underserved by other food assistance programs. It was vetoed by the Governor on September 29th. Coverage of the veto can be found in CalMatters, Los Angeles Times, and Associated Press.