The project is being backed by Silicon Valley titan Chris Hughes, whose Economic Security Project gave $1 million toward the effort.

The goal, supporters say, is to ensure that the embattled city’s residents can stay out of poverty and the experiment is designed to assess whether or not the program could be rolled out on a wider scale.

“We’ve overspent on things like arenas and marinas and things of that sort to try to lure in tourism and dollars that way,” Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs explained, according to Fox News, believing that the model can be used to bolster quality of life in the struggling city – and others like it.

Stockton in recent years has been known as the “foreclosure capital” of the country and drew headlines in 2012 when it declared bankruptcy, becoming a flashpoint for Americans suffering during the Great Recession.

The concept of a universal basic income has gained traction in the Bay Area amid concerns that automation will increasingly displace workers. It’s been propelled by major CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, who argue that so-called “free money” may be a necessity as technological advances alter the labor landscape.

“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,” Zuckerberg said in his Harvard commencement address in May 2017.

Other similar efforts have been rolled out in places like Finland, which announced in April that it was ending its trial run to explore alternative welfare programs instead. The full results will be disclosed next year.

While some experts argue that universal basic income can be a way to lessen poverty by creating a guaranteed income floor, others explain that such a framework is impractical given the current entitlement and welfare state.

“I would be in favor of this if it meant eliminating all other welfare programs and requiring work,” economist and Heritage Foundation fellow Steve Moore told CalWatchdog via email. “The only way out of poverty is a job not a government handout.”

Overall, the experiment will look at how the residents spend the money and the potential economic impact it could have on the city, something that the young 27-year-old mayor is optimistic about.

“We trust that people are smart and resilient to make the best decision for them and their families with the money,” Tubbs said in a CBS News interview back in February. 

Stockton’s effort is expected to begin in early 2019.

The move was approved with a 5-0 vote by the California Energy Commission, in what supporters of solar energy are hailing as a monumental moment.

“This is an undeniably historic decision for the state and the U.S.,” Abigail Ross Hopper, the Solar Energy Industries Association’s CEO said in a statement. “California has long been our nation’s biggest solar champion … now, California is taking bold leadership again, recognizing that solar should be as commonplace as the front door that welcomes you home.”

The regulation will go into effect once it receives its expected approval by the Building Standards Commission later this month.

And while proponents of renewable energy may be pleased with the decision, there’s mounting concerns that the requirement will only aggravate the state’s home affordability crisis, as the mandate is expected to add at least $10,000 in additional construction costs.

However, supporters argue that utility savings will balance out that cost in the long term.

“Adoption of these standards represents a quantum leap in statewide building standards,” Robert Raymer, technical director for the California Building Industry Association, told the commission. “You can bet every other of the 49 states will be watching closely to see what happens.”

But Republican leaders are already coming out against the decision, framing it as just the latest example of government overreach in Sacramento.

“That’s just going to drive the cost up and make California, once again, not affordable to live,” Republican Assemblyman Brian Dahle reportedly said of the dangers of the rules.

The mandate will apply to all homes, condominiums and apartment buildings up to three stories high — with exceptions for structures that are covered by shade.

According to the commission’s own estimates, the panels will cost homeowners around $40 a month, but save them about $80 a month on heating, air conditioning and other costs.

“This is great for wealthier homeowners, but for everybody else it’s one more reason to not go to California or to leave ASAP,” American Enterprise Institute economist Jimmy Pethokoukis said on CNBC Wednesday.

More broadly, the move is part of California’s plan to have all residential buildings be “zero net energy,” which means that the the total amount of energy used by the building is the same as the amount of renewable energy it creates.

“It is impossible to comply with both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California,” a Los Alamitos city agenda report spearheaded by councilman Warren Kusumoto reads. “In this situation, my belief is that the Constitution of the United States has precedence over the Constitution of the State of California.”

Los Alamitos officials voted 4 to 1 to approve the ordinance. However, it will not be officially voted on until April 16. 

“We are declaring sanctuary from California’s sanctuary law,” Kusumoto, who introduced the legislation, told Neil Cavuto on Fox News ahead of the vote.

The proposal was met with much controversy, as Monday’s meeting saw a line of residents out the door to try and get in. It was divided between supporters of President Trump and a hardline immigration agenda and others aligned with immigration rights activists, expressing their outrage at the measure.

Dozens took to the podium to address the council in support and opposition against the move.

“Keep the pressure up & urge the Los Alamitos City Council to do the right thing. Call, email, attend meetings, rally – your activism is need now more than ever,” the ACLU of Southern California swiftly tweeted following the evening meeting.

Supporters of the measure argue that the California law is unconstitutional because it subverts federal law in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

Now, a small Orange County city of around 12,000 residents finds itself at the center of a larger conversation about immigration policies in not just the Golden State – but across the U.S.

Under Senate Bill 54, passed late last year, local law enforcement is prohibited from inquiring as to a person’s immigration status, detaining suspected illegal immigrants for ICE, and from acting as federal immigration agents.

Conservatives and many law enforcement groups argue that “sanctuaries” provide a safe haven for violent criminal aliens, while liberals and immigration activists argue such jurisdictions encourage undocumented aliens to cooperate with police without fear of deportation.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California over its defiance of federal immigration enforcement efforts, intensifying the battle between Washington and the state, which has centered itself as the flashpoint in fights over the Trump agenda.

But with its actions on Monday, Los Alamitos appears to be positioning itself as the “resistance” to the “resistance.”

Poizner, a 61-year-old tech entrepreneur, was California’s insurance commissioner from 2007 to 2011, and besides Arnold Schwarzenegger, is the last Republican to successfully win statewide office.

In a comment to SFGate, Poizner argued that it makes more sense to have the position be held by an independent, saying that “there’s no room for partisan politics. The insurance commissioner needs to be fiercely independent.”

Additionally, Republican registration in the state has continued to decline – and the party only faces increased hurdles in the Trump era, with the state firmly situating itself at the center of the so-called “Resistance.”

Under 30 percent of the electorate in California is Republican. 

When Poizner lost his 2010 primary for governor to Silicon Valley CEO Meg Whitman, he ran as a hardline opponent of illegal immigration, a position unlikely to help him in his campaign. However, he’s since said that his views on the issue have “evolved.”

But despite his history of advocating for a Republican agenda in the deeply liberal state, the tech mogul has the ability to self-fund, giving him the opportunity to present a more formidable challenge to Democrats even without a party infrastructure backing him.

For example, Republican Peter Kuo has just under $4,000 cash in his campaign account, according to recent financial disclosures.

If he’s successful, Poizner will be the first Californian to win statewide as a “no party preference” candidate. But he may be situated in the middle of an emerging trend, as an increasingly sizable segment of the voting population – nearly 5 million California voters – cite “no party preference” on their registration.

Meanwhile, among Democrats, State Senator Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and San Gabriel Valley pulmonologist Dr. Asif Mahmood are also running for the seat.

Current commissioner Dave Jones is termed out and running for attorney general.

And while the job of insurance commissioner is to oversee regulation of the state’s insurance markets and act as a consumer protection advocate, political beliefs on issues outside of the position’s core roles will likely factor into voters’ decisions.

Under the newly passed resolution, no city department, agency or employee “shall use any city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal drug laws related to cannabis.”

The action comes after Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded multiple Obama-era memos that had adopted a policy of non-interference with pot-friendly state laws, in what essentially allowed legalization efforts to take effect without federal interference.

“In light of threats by Attorney General Sessions regarding a misguided crackdown on our democratic decision to legalize recreational cannabis, we have become what may be the first city in the country to declare ourselves a sanctuary city for cannabis,” Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin tweeted this week.

Sessions called the decision a “return to the rule of law.” And while he didn’t outright direct more prosecutions of marijuana crimes, the move outraged proponents of legalization.

“Increased federal enforcement of marijuana will have serious social and economic consequences,” the Berkeley resolution reads. “Uncertainty about potential enforcement and or enforcement itself may force established medical and adult-use cannabis-related businesses to close or move underground, which could impede the development of the newly regulated market and threaten public safety.”

While several states, including California, have legalized pot, it is still illegal under federal law.

“I believe we can balance public safety and resisting the Trump administration,” Mayor Arreguin reportedly said at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. “We’re keeping with the strong position Berkeley is a sanctuary for people in our community.”

However, the move is largely symbolic as there’s little the city could do to stop federal authorities from cracking down on commercial marijuana operations.

In 2016, under Proposition 64, California voted to legalize the drug and it went into effect at the start of this year. Under the new law, adults 21 and over can use marijuana for recreational use.

For the liberal enclave, it’s just the latest act of defiance, as the city has been outspoken in its opposition to the Trump agenda on issues like immigration and climate change.

And in an even more unorthodox move, the city is exploring creating its own crypto-currency in an attempt to establish more independence from Washington by holding an initial coin offering (ICO).

President Trump called out Berkeley specifically last February following violent protests over a planned speech by provocateur Milo Yiannopoulous.

“If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump tweeted, highlighting the conflict between the White House and the city.

The suit was filed by Public Counsel, a pro bono law firm, and Morrison & Foerster, against the State of California, the State Board of Education, the State Department of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson.

“The state has long been aware of the urgency and the depth of the all-too-preventable literacy crisis, and yet it has not implemented a single targeted literacy program to remedy this crisis,” said Mark Rosenbaum, the lead attorney with Public Counsel, according to Education Week.

To support their case, the lawyers reportedly submitted results from a recent Stanford study examining the 26 lowest performing school districts in the U.S. based on literacy and basic education. Eleven of the 26 districts are in California.

Furthermore, data shows that less than 50 percent of students from third grade to fifth grade have met statewide reading standards since 2015. The plaintiffs, which include 10 public school students, want the state to create an accountability system to monitor literacy levels.

“Although denial of literacy is the great American tragedy, California is singlehandedly dragging down the nation despite the hard work and commitment of students, families and teachers,” Rosenbaum added.

Public Counsel has been pro-active in this capacity before as it’s also filed a similar suit against the state of Michigan.

The lawsuit seeks “proven literacy instruction, literacy assessments and interventions, support for teachers, and implementation of practices to promote parent involvement and learning readiness,” according to the press release.

Concerns about a lack of proficiency with basic reading skills has been a persistent concern in California.

For example, just 40 percent of LAUSD students met or exceeded English standards in 2016. That was actually an improvement from 2015 when only 33 percent of students met the benchmarks.

Statewide, around 48 percent of students met English standards on the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress during the same year.

Critics of current policy often cite tenure laws as a reason for the lack of improvement, arguing that the inability to fire poor instructors disadvantages poor and minority students.

But in a high-profile lawsuit in 2016 (Vergara v. California), a California appeal court upheld the teacher tenure framework, reversing a lower court ruling, in what was blow to school choice advocates but a win for teachers unions.

However, the newest challenge doesn’t take aim at tenure, but argues for improved teacher training and additional resources.

“We need citizens that can read. We need citizens that can vote,” David Moch, one of the plaintiffs and a retired teacher, reportedly said about the newest challenge. “Once you get behind, if there’s no intervention, there’s no catching up. The level of the work is getting more intense and multiplied at every level.”

Louis Marinelli, president of the Yes California Independence Campaign, announced the news in an official farewell statement last week.

“While Washington refused to act and the Americans continued to spew their hatred towards immigrants, Sacramento actively worked to protect our immigrants,” he said. “It was this contrast which motivated me to start this campaign for independence.”

The movement was always seen as a long-shot effort, but it highlighted the way in which many Californians have tried to distance themselves from Washington in the age of Trump.

The measure would have needed to get 585,407 valid signatures by July to qualify for the ballot in 2018.

“I have found in Russia a new happiness, a life without the albatross of frustration and resentment towards ones’ homeland, and a future detached from the partisan divisions and animosity that has thus far engulfed my entire adult life,” Marinelli added.

Furthermore, multiple donors pulled out of the effort due to fears of being tied to Putin, complicating a path forward for the movement.

“People got scared,” Ruiz Evans, vice president of Yes California told the Sacramento Bee. “They got spooked by what they saw on the news and pulled out.”

There were also constitutional hurdles, as a secession would have needed an amendment to the Constitution, meaning there would need to be approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures.

But still, Ruiz says he’s not giving up and plans to file a new “Calexit” proposal by May 1 in association with a new group called the California Freedom Coalition.

“Though UC Berkeley promises its students an environment that promotes free debate and the free exchange of ideas, it had breached this promise through the repressive actions of University administrators and campus police, who have systematically and intentionally suppressed constitutionally-protected expression,” the suit reads.

The university rescheduled the event for May 2 following backlash, but that’s a date that Coulter isn’t available for and it’s also “reading day” before exams when classes are not even in session.

“It is a sad day indeed when the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement is morphing before our eyes into the cemetery of free speech on college campuses,” said Harmeet Dhillon, who represents the school’s College Republican chapter.

In response to attempts to silence her, Coulter is vowing to show up as planned on Thursday, arguing she won’t allow her First Amendment rights to be stripped.

“It is anarchy when you are only enforcing the law in order to allow liberals to speak. But, no, we’ll let these masked rioters show up with weapons and start – I mean, they are all little beta males, but with a weapon, even a beta male can do some damage, especially to a 99-pound girl,” the New York Times best-seller told Sean Hannity in a recent interview.

The event was rescheduled due to security concerns, according to administrators, highlighting the willingness of the school to cancel events amid the threat of violence from leftist opposition.

Overall, Berkeley has become something of a flashpoint in the violent resistance to President Trump. Just weeks ago, nearly two dozen people were arrested after anti-Trump protesters clashed with Trump supporters at a rally in the liberal enclave.

Furthermore, there was even rioting when former Breitbart editor and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos came to speak the school — an event that the public university also shut down.

The canceling of Coulter is just the latest chapter in the debate over the suppression of conservative speech on college campuses, as even left wing figures like Bill Maher and Bernie Sanders are coming to her defense.

“If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?” Sanders told The Huffington Post.

While Berkeley historically has prided itself on its willingness to embrace free speech and expression, the school has appeared to morph into something of a thought bubble, at times seeming almost eager to shut down events involving those on the right.

“Berkeley, you know, used to be the cradle of free speech, and now it’s just the cradle for f—king babies,” Maher said on Friday’s episode of HBO’s “Real Time.”

The conservative firebrand is still planning to speak about immigration, the topic of one of her most recent books.

“I’m showing up this Thursday. It’s up to the police to keep me safe,” Coulter said.

“Lower-income students … are able to many times, through our great programs in California, get help to pay for tuition. But they’re still graduating with a tremendous amount of debt,” said Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento.

The plan, unveiled earlier this month, would cover not just tuition but living expenses as well, making it different from other similar proposals in states like New York.

“California is taking the boldest step in the nation for making college debt-free,” Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, said in a recent press conference.

The cost for the program would come at a price tag of $1.6 billion per year, phased in over five years, and would be paid for using money from the state’s General Fund, lawmakers say.

Proponents say existing tax revenues will cover the cost, but other projections to provide universal college came in at a much higher cost of $3.3 billion annually.

Some lawmakers are skeptical of the effectiveness of the plan, especially as California confronts a wide range of other issues like infrastructure and entitlement spending.

“I think it’s well intentioned,” Republican Assemblyman Rocky Chavez said of the plan. “But I don’t think it recognizes the economic reality or really addresses the challenges we have to address.”

Additionally, the plan comes at a time when the effectiveness of Cal State schools is being called into question due to poor graduation rates.

For example, under 20 percent of full-time CSU freshmen graduate in four years, much less than the 34 percent national average for public universities.

The “Degrees Not Debt” program would affect around 400,000 students at UC and Cal State institutions.

It’s just one of over a dozen student-aid related bills already proposed in Sacramento this year alone to offset the cost of college, as the average student loan debt per graduate in the Golden State is $22,191.

For example, Assembly Democrats last month pushed forward a plan that would grant in-state tuition for individuals in the state as refugees.

Currently, around 60 percent of Cal State students and about half of University of California and community college students already have their tuition fully covered by existing grants and aid programs.

Student aid and college reform has come into increasing focus, partly spurred by former Democratic Bernie Sanders’ push to make all at public universities tuition-free.