A handful of California cities, like Los Angeles and San Francisco, have so-called “sanctuary” policies, which prompted the federal action. And in a statement of defiance, Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon said he would fast track his bill to make California a sanctuary state. 

“(T)he Senate will expedite the process to pass my bill, SB54, to prevent state and local tax dollars and law enforcement resources from being used to help ICE destroy families and damage our economy,” the Los Angeles Democrat said. 

But even as Democratic leaders strongly push to protect the sanctuary policies, the public is split. A Hoover Institution poll from earlier this month showed that 40 percent of voters support sanctuary policies, while 41 oppose (19 percent didn’t seem to care either way). 

De Leon called the move “unconstitutional” and said the state would fight Trump in Congress and in court.  

The money is not insignificant. For example, Los Angeles is slated to receive $523 million this year in federal funding, while the state will receive around $95 billion. 

California’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, said in a statement that the executive orders don’t change, and cannot contradict, existing law.

“Executive orders can be challenged for violating constitutional and legal standards in their enforcement,” Becerra said.

While a legal battle could take years (perhaps beyond a Trump presidency), the stage may be set for funding fights in Congress. 

De Leon’s bill will be heard next week in committee. 

The popular Democratic governor echoed other Democratic leaders in the state by taking shots at Republican President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans and their proposed, yet sometimes vague, agenda.

On the day Trump pushed through two controversial oil projects opposed by environmentalists, with a repeal of the Affordable Care Act slowly working through Congress and with federal action on immigration looming on the horizon, Brown pointed to the battle lines drawn between the state and the federal government.

“While no one knows what the new leaders will actually do, there are signs that are disturbing,” Brown said. “We have seen the bald assertion of ‘alternative facts.’ We have heard the blatant attacks on science. Familiar signposts of our democracy – truth, civility, working together – have been obscured or swept aside.”

Yet the tone wasn’t entirely combative, compared to legislative leaders. Brown lauded Trump’s plans for massive investment in infrastructure (“Amen to that, brother”) and highlighted bipartisan accomplishments in the state, like the creation of the rainy-day fund and the water bond.

Brown also drew a stark contrast with Hillary Clinton, who, during the campaign season, referred to half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” 

“Democrats are in the majority, but Republicans represent real Californians too,” Brown said. “We went beyond party when we reformed workers’ compensation, when we created a rainy-day fund and when we passed the water bond.”

Brown lauded accomplishments during his governorship, which included increasing education funding, passing climate-change legislation, removing a substantial budget deficit and adding millions of people to insurance plans through both Medi-Cal and private policies.

A significant portion of the speech was devoted to immigration, noting immigrants are “an integral part of who we are and what we’ve become.” Brown called attention to some of the state’s immigration initiatives, like the Trust Act and a measure issuing driver licenses to undocumented immigrants, saying “we may be called to defend those laws and defend we will.”

“Whether it’s the threat to our budget, or to undocumented Californians, or to our efforts to combat climate change – or even more global threats such as a financial meltdown or a nuclear incident or terrorist attack – this is a time which calls out for courage and for perseverance,” Brown said. “I promise you both.”

A bill introduced by Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, would roll back the sales and usage tax exemptions for certain, less-nutritious, snack foods.

The measure, part of Garcia’s agenda to highlight inequities in the tax code, requires a heavy lift to become law. In 1992, voters repealed a tax on snacks, leaving most candy and junk food exempt from sales tax. The measure requires two-thirds majority and a vote of the people.

Garcia’s office estimates the measure would bring in around $1 billion in tax revenue annually. 

While the additional revenue could fund any number of priorities, Garcia has long sought to make a point that snacks with little nutritional value are not taxed, while necessities — feminine hygiene products like tampons — are.

“As I took a closer look at our tax code, it became apparent that while California’s policy is to tax luxury items, the reality is that it’s inconsistent,” Garcia said in a statement. “We tax necessities like tampons but exempt chocolate bars.”

Anti-tax groups are already lining up against the measure, arguing that it was an “administrative nightmare” to tax some items and not others.

“California voters repealed the snack tax 25 years ago by a resounding two to one margin,” said David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “They stated very clearly then that they didn’t want a regressive and punitive billion dollar tax that predominantly targeted low-income individuals. Nothing has changed.” 

The extent to which Russia interfered is still being investigated, but reports suggest there’s consensus among U.S. intelligence officials that Russia hacked emails of Democratic officials and operatives in an effort to influence the election. The hacked emails were distributed to the news media, including CalWatchdog, throughout the election through the site WikiLeaks. 

Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Marin County, has introduced legislation to require state educators to develop curriculum for students to learn about Russia’s involvement in the election. 

“This is a threat to our democracy and must be treated with appropriate significance in American history,” Levine said of the Russian hacking in a statement. “California is the largest textbook market in the nation. Textbooks approved in our state are used throughout the country. Through this legislation, we can make sure students in California and across the United States receive accurate information about the 2016 presidential election.”

The move by Levine is not unprecedented. Recent laws modifying curriculum included subjects like the Armenian genocide, civics, the environment and Barack Obama and the importance of the first African American president. 

The reasons range from district work, to disdain for Trump, to responding to Twitter polls. In all, more than 50 House Democrats are planning on skipping the event.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will attend, however, out of a sense of “responsibility” and to honor the “peaceful transition of power.” The two remaining undecided Californians are: Senator Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles. Feinstein had a pacemaker installed last week, while Becerra is going through the confirmation process to become California’s next attorney general.

While critics are already panning the boycotts, attending the inauguration is not a requirement; skipping it in protest is uncommon but not unprecedented. Around 80 Democrats skipped the ceremony for Richard Nixon in 1973 to protest a military strike in North Vietnam. 

The only real requirement surrounding the inauguration is the oath of office being administered; everything else is a matter of “custom and tradition.” But that in itself creates a problem for Trump, said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. 

“Here is Trump’s problem. He proclaims that he is a disrupter and takes pride in flouting customs and traditions. … Accordingly, he and his defenders cannot turn around and fault the other side for flouting customs and traditions,” Pitney said. “If he wants a disruptive tenure, he’s going to get it, and he won’t like all of the results.”

Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, introduced legislation requiring the DMV to revoke registrations for self-driving vehicles in violation of the state’s Autonomous Vehicle Tester Program. The bill is a response to Uber, which last year began testing its vehicles without a permit, even picking up passengers, violating state regulations. And one of the vehicles ran a red light. 

Under Ting’s bill, law enforcement would have the authority to impound violating vehicles and the DMV could fine as much as $25,000 per vehicle per day. 

“I applaud our innovation economy and all the companies developing autonomous vehicle technology, but no community should face what we did in San Francisco,” Ting said in a statement. “The pursuit of innovation does not include a license to put innocent lives at risk.”

Permits

Twenty companies have 130 test vehicles on the road under permits, which cost $150 each. To get permitted, vehicles must be registered and insured. Documentation both certifying the vehicle is for testing only and describing the technology must be provided as well.  

Last year, Uber refused to get permits before debuting its pilot program. The DMV revoked the cars’ registrations and offered to expedite permits, but Uber packed up its driver-less car program and moved to Arizona instead. 

“We have stopped our self-driving pilot in California, but remain 100 percent committed to our home state and will be redoubling our efforts to develop workable statewide rules,” an Uber spokesperson told CalWatchdog. “Our cars recently departed for Arizona by truck. We’re excited to have the support of Governor (Doug) Ducey.”

The bad news: Providing certain health care services just became way more expensive for the counties. 

The Brown administration is ending a program that coordinated care for seniors and low-income families because it was no longer cost effective. As a result, the state will save $626 million this year, forcing counties to pick up the check. 

The Coordinated Care Initiative allows Californians who are eligible for both Medi-Cal and Medicare to “receive medical, behavioral health, long‑term services and supports, and home and community‑based services coordinated through a single health plan,” according to the budget document released Tuesday. 

But the law allows the Department of Finance to end CCI if it is deemed no longer cost effective. Federal regulations requiring in-home caregivers to receive overtime after 40 hours per week drove the cost of the program up with the minimum wage hike.

Last year, state analysts estimated the plan to gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour would cost the state $4 billion by 2021. Cutting the CCI program will lower the state’s burden to $2.6 billion, according to a Department of Finance official. 

Cutting the program will shift the labor costs onto the counties, which is estimated to cost more than $4.4 billion over the next six years, according to the California State Association of Counties. 

 “This would be devastating to counties all over the state,” CSAC President and Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson said in a statement. “We undoubtedly would have to make cuts in other vital social services to cover these costs.”

The budget showed a $2 billion deficit — modest by historical standards, but worthy of the lawmakers’ attention — caused by an increase in government programs over the last few years and lagging revenues.

Brown said he didn’t want to “repeat mistakes of the past,” recalling the days of the state’s budget crisis. The proposed budget showed approximately $8 billion in the Rainy Day Fund by the end of 2017-18, which is 63 percent of the constitutional target, which Brown said was bigger than it seemed as he called for greater savings now. 

Independent analysts, as well as Brown’s budget experts, have cautioned against the state’s over-dependence on the wealthiest residents to fund the government. Brown lauded the state’s “progressive” tax system, where people with the most pay the most. But he said it also requires prudence.

“It doesn’t make sense to pretend we have money when we really don’t,” Brown said. 

Trump 

Recently, many prominent Democrats staked out positions as Trump antagonists, in interviews and even with the Legislature’s hiring of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. Brown took a more measured approach by saying money wasn’t moved around to certain areas in anticipation of Trump, but left the door open for the May budget revision.

Brown seemed confident that the Affordable Care Act, which has expanded coverage to millions of Californians, wouldn’t go anywhere, noting that any repeal-and-replace proposal would have to get Democratic support in the Senate and that cutting health care for millions of people would be political suicide for Trump. 

Transportation and housing 

In response to the ongoing infrastructure funding woes, Brown proposed a “road improvement charge” of $65 per vehicle. In other car-related news, the gas tax will increase 2.1 cents per gallon automatically. 

As for housing, one of the other major unresolved issues facing the state, Brown proposed to re-appropriate an unused $400 million in funding for housing that was set aside in the last budget.

The budget does send $3.2 billion to local municipalities for affordable housing projects, but Brown said more needed to be done to spur housing development by cutting red tape, cutting delays and cutting “whatever expenses we can do without.”

“We have to bring down the cost structure of housing, not just subsidize,” Brown said.  

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, a Rocklin Republican, asked the California attorney general’s office on Friday whether Holder’s hiring for outside legal work in an impending battle with the incoming Trump administration violates a constitutional clause protecting against cronyism. 

“California courts have interpreted the civil service mandate of article VII of forbidding private contracting for services that are of a kind that persons selected through civil service could perform ‘adequately and competently,'” Kiley wrote, adding that there are almost 1,600 attorneys and support staff in the Legal Services Division of the state’s AG office.

Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, and Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, announced on Thursday they’d decided to contract with Holder’s law firm, Convington & Burling, for three months, at $25,000 per month. 

The hiring of Covington & Burling was another move in an ongoing effort to bolster the state’s defenses against the perceived threat of the incoming Trump administration in areas of immigration, health care and the environment. Kiley argued that defending the state against the federal government is traditionally the role of the state AG. 

“In light of these facts, I respectfully ask your legal opinion as to whether the 1,592 attorneys and legal staff at the State Attorney General’s Office can perform ‘adequately and competently’ the legal services for which Covington & Burling has been retained by the Legislature,” Kiley wrote.

In a joint statement, Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, and Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, announced the agreement with Holder’s firm, Covington and Burling, to deal with “potential” challenges from the Trump administration. 

“The Legislature will work with the governor and our next attorney general to protect California’s economy and our sensible policies on climate change, health care, civil rights and immigration,” according to the joint statement, adding that Holder will lead a team of Covington and Burling lawyers to advise the Legislature in its “efforts to resist any attempts to roll back the progress California has made.”

The statement was short on specifics, like the terms of the agreement (including costs), the timing (prior to the swearing ins of both Trump and the presumptive CA attorney general, Xavier Becerra, who, if confirmed by the Legislature, will represent the state) and why the two leaders made the decision between themselves. Spokesmen for both leaders would not comment on these questions.

“It is all about branding and symbolism,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “If Trump does take action on immigration, for instance, there are many qualified lawyers who specialize in that field. No disrespect to Holder, but U.S. attorneys general spend their time managing a bureaucracy, not arguing cases in court.”  

Republicans respond

Responses from Republicans in the Legislature trickled out throughout the day, with many arguing there are already plenty of problems facing the state that have nothing to do with Trump.

“This is a distraction from the very real problems facing everyday Californians,” said Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes, R-Yucca Valley. “Donald Trump did not cause California’s transportation crisis, nor did he play a role in our state’s sky-high housing costs.”

Newly-elected Assemblyman Vince Fong questioned the need for more counsel, calling the move “political.”

“The Democrat leadership’s hiring of Eric Holder to be a consultant dedicated to obstructing the Trump presidency is a waste of taxpayer dollars,” the Kern County Republican said in a statement. “The Legislature already has immediate access to legal counsel within the Legislature and in the Attorney General’s office.”

More details

The Sacramento Bee reported the contract with Covington and Burling will be initially for three months and the $25,000-per-month legal fee will be split between the Assembly and Senate, while the Los Angeles Times, citing legislative aides, reported the funds will “come out of both chambers’ operating budgets and would not require additional state funds.”

Holder served as U.S. attorney general from 2009 to 2015, under President Barack Obama. He served as a U.S. deputy attorney general under former President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001.

Holder was the first sitting member of a presidential cabinet to be held in contempt of Congress, in relation to the investigation into a botched federal law enforcement program, Operation Fast and Furious, where federal agents lost about 1,400 firearms, two of which were eventually found at the murder scene of a U.S. border agent.