More than three-quarters of California’s local governments have declined to authorize retail stores to sell cannabis, as permitted by state voters with their 2016 approval of Proposition 64. Opposition has been led by moderate Democrats and conservative Republicans unconvinced that making the drug readily available for recreational use is good for society.

But much of California’s House delegation is supportive of helping the marijuana industry achieve a key goal: access to the banking system. Even with cannabis now legal in some form in 33 states, the great majority of banks and credit unions in the Golden State and elsewhere have declined to do business with marijuana-related businesses because possession and sale of the drug remain illegal under federal law.

Last week, the House passed the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act 321 to 103. Every California Democrat backed the measure and so did four of the state’s seven Republican members: Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, Tom McClintock of Elk Grove, Devin Nunes of Tulare and Duncan Hunter of Alpine.

The passage of the bill after past efforts went nowhere was widely credited to a change in focus in lobbying. Leading the push this time was lobbyists for the financial services industry itself – not the cannabis industry. They argued that making a multibillion-dollar industry use cash only created headaches and safety risks for the many legitimate, longstanding businesses that dealt with cannabis companies.

Bankers say other businesses shouldn’t be inconvenienced

American Bankers Association President and CEO Rob Nichols told Politico, “The most compelling arguments have been centered around these secondary relationships. It’s the local plumber, it’s the local electrician, it’s the attorney, it’s the accountant who are doing business with a cannabis grower or dispensary who are then having challenges associated with getting banking products and services.”

The American Financial Services Association focused its lobbying on McCarthy and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, also emphasizing the need to stop inconveniencing so many established businesses.

The fate of the SAFE bill in the Senate is unclear. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, has said that he will schedule a hearing on the bill, but his aides said that should not be interpreted as support.

California’s Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, are expected to be supportive. After 35 years as a staunch supporter of the drug war, Feinstein reversed course in spring 2018.

“My state has legalized marijuana for personal use, and as California continues to implement this law, we need to ensure we have strong safety rules to prevent impaired driving and youth access, similar to other public health issues like alcohol,” she told a McClatchy reporter.

Harris has also changed her position. In 2010, while running for California attorney general, she opposed an initiative to legalize recreational marijuana use. 

“Spending two decades in courtrooms, Harris believes that drug selling harms communities,” her aide told Capitol Weekly. “Harris supports the legal use of medicinal marijuana but does not support anything beyond that.”

But her position softened over the years, and last year she signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill by Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, that would make cannabis legal under federal law.

Former Rep. Xavier Becerra (pictured), D-Los Angeles, was appointed in 2016 by Gov. Jerry Brown to replace state Attorney General Kamala Harris after she was elected to the U.S. Senate. He won a full term in the 2018 elections.

While Becerra joined Brown in backing measures that made the criminal justice system less punitive, he has come in the cross hairs of activists for his interpretation of Senate Bill 1421, which took effect Jan. 1.

The measure, by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, wipes away decades of protections of police discipline records that were adopted by past lawmakers and upheld by courts. It mandates the release of such records if they involve life-threatening or lethal use of force, sexual misconduct and lying in the execution of official duties.

Last year, however, police unions began arguing that Skinner’s law only applies to disciplinary records generated after it took effect Jan. 1 – not to past reports of discipline. However, on Jan. 2, the California Supreme Court denied an emergency request for a delay in implementing the law pending a full review of how the law should be interpreted. This was seen by legal observers as a plain sign that state justices agreed with Skinner, who said the retroactive intent of her law was clear.

Becerra won’t release discipline records of his agents

Nevertheless, police unions representing specific agencies have continued to file lawsuits. In two cases, involving Los Angeles and Richmond police officers, local judges have agreed to a temporary hold on discipline records predating Jan. 1 of this year.

These rulings were cited earlier this month by Supervising Deputy Attorney General Mark Beckington in rejecting a public records request for discipline records of law enforcement agents who work for Becerra.

In an interview with KQED, the Northern California PBS affiliate, the executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition blasted Becerra for his department’s decision, saying it sent the wrong message to local agencies and reflected a failure of leadership.

“This is the highest law enforcement officer in the state. He has decided not to disclose records that I think the new law makes very clear should be disclosed,” David Snyder said.

Skinner told KQED that the attorney general’s decision was “puzzling” given that several state law-enforcement agencies complied with the law once it took effect.

But Becerra has rejected criticism, saying that on privacy issues – especially those involving law enforcement officers – he would err on the side of caution.

The controversy has echoes of criticism facing Sen. Harris, the former San Francisco district attorney, as she has launched her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

In her new autobiography, “The Truths We Hold,” and in speeches to progressive groups, Harris has depicted herself as an aggressive advocate of the view that the criminal-justice system is overly punitive and particularly harsh on some minority groups.

Harris critics, defenders fight over her record

But University of San Francisco law professor Lara Bazelon says that doesn’t square with her record as San Francisco DA and state attorney general. In a commentary for the New York Times, Bazelon wrote that Harris was willing to use evidence she knew to be tainted to obtain convictions.

Other reformers have focused on her refusal to support Proposition 47, the 2014 ballot measure that limited prison time for nonviolent crimes, and her opposition to legislation that would have mandated her office conduct independent investigations of fatal police shootings.

Harris’ defenders say this amounts to cherry-picking that ignores key parts of her record. They note she supported a pioneering program in San Francisco that provided resources and counseling to keep first-time drug offenders from ending up in a life of crime. They also note that as attorney general, her agency was the first in the state government to require that its law-enforcement agents wear body cameras.

It’s unclear when the dispute over police discipline records will be resolved. But since lower state courts have reached different decisions on how to interpret Senate Bill 1421, that normally means the issue won’t be resolved without a California Supreme Court ruling.

Signaling he’s very likely to run for president, Bay Area hedge fund billionaire and progressive activist Tom Steyer has begun searching for key aides to help him as he seeks the 2020 Democratic nomination.

A recent Linked-In ad was traced by the New York Times to Steyer’s nascent campaign. ”A high profile political campaign based on the West Coast is seeking highly skilled political professionals to join our national campaign team,” it said. The ad sought state directors for New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina – the next three primary and caucus states after Iowa kicks off the nomination process with caucuses on Feb. 3, 2020. A Steyer aide confirmed to the Times that he was responsible for the posting.

Steyer, 60, a former Yale soccer team captain who became a Californian after enrolling at the Stanford graduate business school, had a relatively low-key role in state and national politics until 2012. That’s when he handed over many of his financial responsibilities and began aggressively advocating for bolder environmental programs, among other causes.

‘Need to Impeach’ campaign raises national profile

This year, Steyer’s national profile has shot up after he spent at least $40 million on a “Need to Impeach” cable and online campaign in which he stars in advertisements criticizing the conduct of President Donald Trump. The campaign has gathered more than 6 million signatures in an online petition urging Congress to remove the Republican Trump.

Steyer could be competing for the nomination against as many as three other California Democrats: Sen. Kamala Harris, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Rep. Eric Swalwell of the East Bay area near San Francisco.

Harris has by far the highest national profile of the three, having won headlines as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In online prediction markets, Harris, Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have all been the leader to win the nomination at various points over the past two months.

Harris 5th in first CNN survey of Iowa Democrats

Harris didn’t fare as well in the first CNN/Des Moines Register poll of Iowa Democrats released over the weekend. Former Vice President Joe Biden led with 32 percent, Sanders was next with 19 percent, O’Rourke had 11 percent, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren had 8 percent, with Harris in fifth at 5 percent.

But the former San Francisco district attorney can take solace in two facts. The first is that polls before the Iowa caucuses have a history of swinging wildly, and there is still more than 13 months until voting. The second is that African American candidates tend to do better in more diverse states than Iowa, which is 91 percent white.

While Illinois Sen. Barack Obama won the 2008 caucuses with 38 percent of the vote, that was among his 10 worst showings in primaries and caucuses as he went on to win the nomination. In 1988, civil-rights activist Jesse Jackson got 8.8 percent of the Iowa caucus vote versus the 29.4 percent he got in the overall Democratic nomination process as the runner-up to the nominee, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. Jackson only fared worse in two other states.

In the Register-CNN poll, Steyer and Swalwell got 1 percent each. Garcetti was at 0 percent, receiving the fewest votes of any of the 20 listed Democratic candidates.

But this track record of advancement doesn’t impress prominent California politicians. The 11 candidates to succeed Newsom in Tuesday’s primary are arguably as obscure as any collection of candidates for an open statewide office in the 21st century.

Three candidates have each won support of key elements in the Democratic coalition, and one Republican hopeful has also stood out. But since the state’s major independent pollsters have skipped the race, it’s difficult to know what to expect Tuesday. Based on money raised as of campaign spending reports published May 13, here’s a look at the major candidates in order of those who had the most resources.

Sacramento Democrat Eleni Kounalakis, 52, had raised $4.5 million, at least $2.5 million of it her own money; a Sunday Sacramento Bee story reported the updated sum is actually $4.2 million. She is a developer who served as U.S. ambassador to Hungary under the Obama administration, having been sworn in by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010. Kounalakis, pictured, who would be the first woman lieutenant governor, has emphasized her housing background as giving her insights into addressing California’s housing crisis, and also focuses on reducing income inequality.

Kounalakis is counting on Clinton’s 2016 network of fundraisers and supporters to help her make the final two in November. This network includes her father, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, a prolific Clinton fundraiser who has given nearly $5 million to a nominally independent expenditure committee formed by the California Medical Association that has touted her candidacy. U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-San Francisco, another Clinton backer, is all aboard.

State Sen. Ed Hernandez, 60, an Azusa Democrat and optometrist backed by labor, has raised $2.8 million. One of the reasons the CMA supports Kounalakis is its distaste for Hernandez’s efforts to allow medical professionals, including optometrists, to offer care that can now only be provided by those with traditional medical degrees. But it is unclear how Hernandez would have more means to advance such legislation as a lieutenant governor than in the Legislature.

Hernandez says if elected, he would push a broader health agenda, emphasizing the need to give access to care to 3 million state residents who now are shut out. Of the private polling that had been done by mid-May, Hernandez reportedly had the lead going into the final weeks of the primary campaign.

Piedmont Democrat Jeff Bleich, 56, an attorney who served in the Obama White House as a special counsel; as U.S. ambassador to Australia; and as chair of the California State University Board of Trustees; had raised $2 million. Bleich has emphasized policy goals of reforming higher education and improving environmental protections.

Like his two Democratic rivals, Bleich has support from key party factions, including environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and various LGBT organizations. The former president of the California State Bar also has state trial lawyers in his corner, as well as Rep. Adam Schiff, the Burbank Democrat who has become a national figure because of his high-profile opposition to President Donald Trump.

The most viable Republican on the ballot, Pasadena international import-export businessman Cole Harris, had $1.9 million in campaign funds at last report, nearly all from his own checkbook. Harris has the state GOP’s endorsement and was the first lieutenant governor candidate to run TV ads in the important Los Angeles metro market. But he has done relatively little retail campaigning, and his bare-bones campaign website offers few policy specifics beyond support for the Trump administration and border security and opposition to socialized health care.

Harris’ endorsement from the state GOP might be enough to carry him to the November runoff. But it is unclear if he is ready to self-fund a statewide general election race, and most California Republican insiders expect GOP donors to care more about preserving seven endangered U.S. House seats in the Golden State than any other California campaigns.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, 47 – with his military background, part-Mexican heritage, Spanish fluency, Rhodes scholarship and progressive credentials – has seen his tentative steps toward a White House bid win encouragement from pundits and politicians alike.

But Garcetti has a disadvantage that doesn’t hamper politicians like Harris, Warren and Biden who don’t have daily responsibilities for making government work better: He’s a mayor who faces fresh scrutiny each day over how his administration is performing. This has yielded months of critical coverage on three major issues:

1) A Los Angeles Times investigation of a retirement program set up for police officers and firefighters showed rampant abusive practices likely costing city taxpayers “hundreds of millions of dollars.” Under the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), approved by voters in 2001, officers and firefighters can get both regular pay and a pension in their final years on the job.

The Times probe found that nearly half of the 5,000 men and women who signed up for DROP got substantial increases in their pensions by claiming work-related disabilities. The newspaper found broad evidence of workers’ compensation fraud – and no evidence the Garcetti administration ever acted to counter the fraud, even after being warned about it in 2016.

The newspaper also found no evidence the program has saved money, as voters were promised in 2001. And instead of keeping officers and firefighters on the job, DROP reportedly led to the loss of thousands of workers who filed disability claims.

Despite the findings, Garcetti earlier this month gave his blessing to a new police contract that retained DROP as is and gave officers a raise of up to 5 percent.

Recycling, homeless programs drew sharp critiques

2) A new 10-year contract with seven companies to improve recycling citywide has proven a public relations debacle for the Garcetti administration. Landlords have reportedly seen recycling bills go up three- to six-fold, leaving many scrambling to raise rents that are already considered sky-high. Many individual customers complain bitterly over extra fees added to their bills by the companies for services that previously were provided without additional charges.

City officials claimed to be blindsided by the problems. But as with the DROP program, there’s evidence that Garcetti and the Los Angeles City Council dropped the ball. The Times noted that former City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana had opposed awarding exclusive long-term contracts but was ignored. Santana contended that promoting recycling competition was more likely to lead to reasonable rates.

3) The city’s troubled efforts to respond to a burgeoning homeless problem. A 21-page report by Santana released in 2015 concluded that the city spent $100 million a year on homelessness in unfocused, marginally successful ways.

This year, a public backlash has built over the Garcetti administration’s slowness in responding to nearly 6,000 requests to clean up homeless encampments. City statistics released in February showed that 2,400 of the complaints had gone unaddressed for more than 90 days.

In an interview with the Times, City Councilman Jose Huizar, who represents a downtown district with a heavy homeless population, depicted City Hall’s response as having failed Angelenos.

On the homeless cleanup front, “How can we go to our constituents and say with a straight face, ‘We will get to this’?” Huizar told the newspaper.

Garcetti has plenty of time to make up his mind about a presidential bid, in terms of qualifying for the ballot in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in early 2020. He also has some leeway in gearing up fundraising and organizational efforts. The last “outsider” candidate to win the Democratic presidential nod – then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama – didn’t publicly signal his intention to seek the 2008 nomination until October 2006, after spending much of the year saying he would not run.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is making the formal announcement Wednesday during remarks at the Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day hosted by the California Peace Officers’ Association in Sacramento.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Sessions said in released excerpts ahead of the address. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe we are going to win.”

The lawsuit focuses on three separate California laws: Senate Bill 54, Assembly Bill 450 and AB103 – a trio of legislation making up the state’s “sanctuary” policy.

The suit asks the federal court to block the enforcement of these laws statewide.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions” have dominated the national dialogue on immigration in recent years, with critics saying it creates a safe haven for criminal aliens, while proponents arguing it provides a safer environment for the undocumented to come forward and report crimes without fear of deportation.

In response to Sessions’ actions, California Democratic leaders swiftly responded, condemning the lawsuit as a political stunt.

“At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America,” Gov. Jerry Brown tweeted.

“Trump and Sessions think they can bully California – but it won’t work,” U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., added.

But the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen praised the decision.

“California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and the responsibility of the Congress to protect our homeland,” Nielsen said in a statement. “I appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Sessions and the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law and protect American communities.”

The decision by the Justice Department is perhaps the boldest yet in taking aim at the alleged obstruction of federal law, going on offense after a series of suits filed against the administration from California’s attorney general Xavier Becerra on issues like immigration and climate change.

“No matter what happens in Washington, #California will stay the course and enforce all our laws and protect all our people. That’s how we keep our communities safe. #Immigration,” Becerra wrote in response to the news.

More recently, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf grabbed national headlines after she warned area residents of upcoming ICE raids, with agency officials accusing her of promoting lawless and undercutting federal authority.

For example, Bay Area Congressman Ro Khanna, D-Calif., reportedly asked Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich to run against the incumbent, believing the party needs someone further to the left to occupy the seat.

“There are other voices in our state who are far more in touch with the values,” Khanna told Politico.

While Feinstein has been a fixture of California politics for decades, her softer tone toward President Trump and stances on issues like national security and encryption have caused her to lose favor with some in her party.
“She was totally out of touch when the whole debate happened on encryption,’’ Khanna added, according to Politico, referencing the dialogue that took place in the aftermath of the San Bernardino terror attack. “She didn’t even understand some of those issues.”

Furthermore, she faced jeers from a town hall crowd this summer after suggesting that President Trump could become a “good president” if he would “learn” and “change.”

“Look, this man is going to be president most likely for the rest of this term,” the senator said at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club in August. “I just hope he has the ability to learn and to change and if he does he can be a good president. And that’s my hope.”

Following backlash, she was forced to clarify her remarks.

At 84, she is the oldest senator in the upper chamber and the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As some reporters noted, the announcement is seen as bad news for L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, who were viewed as likely candidates if Feinstein decided to retire. De León in particular is thought to have been eyeing the seat, as he’s termed out of the state Senate next year.

The talks about a primary challenger come as Democrats nationally have been looking to revamp their image with fresh faces and “new blood” after Hillary Clinton’s defeat last November.

“Her policies are completely out of touch with California Democrats, and we think she’d be more at home in a Republican primary,” Corbin Trent of the Justice Democrats told Vox, expressing support for a primary challenger.

With California positioning itself as the center of the so-called “Resistance” against the Trump agenda in Washington, the stage could be set for a challenge to Feinstein from the left. But with support from top Democrats in the state like U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, along with a robust campaign infrastructure and strong name recognition, any effort to take her on will present a steep challenge.

Denise Cross / flickr

In an effort to bolster its relevance during the next presidential election, Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a new law moving California’s primary from June to early March.

A March primary gives the Golden State an opportunity to be political flashpoint moving into 2020. In 2016, by the time June rolled around, the presidential primaries were essentially over.

“Candidates will not be able to ignore the largest, most diverse state in the nation as they seek our country’s highest office,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said. “California has been a leader time and time again on the most important issues facing our country – including immigration, education and the environment. The Prime Time Primary Act will help ensure that issues important to Californians are prioritized by presidential candidates from all political parties.”

The move is also seen as a potential boost to possible Democratic candidates like Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, rising stars in the party who would benefit from having their home state vote earlier in the primary process.

The legislation also moves up congressional races, taking effect in 2019. Now, the elections will fall “on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March,” making California part of the so-called “Super Tuesday” states.

Furthermore, an earlier primary will have a significant effect on fundraising, beyond candidates raising money earlier.

“With an earlier primary, our elections could have major national implications in the electoral college and down ballot races,” Los Angeles-based GOP fundraiser Charles Moran told CalWatchdog. “D.C. will have to pay attention to us for more than just our money.”

This isn’t a first for California, as there was a February primary back in 2008, leading to the “highest voter turnout for a primary election since 1980,” according to Padilla.

Joining the “Super Tuesday” fray also appears to be an effort to thwart President Trump, or least give California a greater opportunity to set the anti-Trump agenda for Democrats nationally.

State Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, who authored the bill, hinted at that motivation, saying that “we have a responsibility to drive a different agenda at the national level and promote inclusion and consensus not the politics of division.”

California has positioned itself at the center of the so-called “resistance” against the Trump administration, suing over the travel ban, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and the border wall.

Continuing a longstanding bipartisan tradition, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra came

Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, is sponsoring a measure to repeal the fuel tax and vehicle fee hikes approved this spring. The description given to Allen’s proposal by Becerra’s office didn’t mention taxes or fees. Instead, it said the measure “eliminates recently enacted road repair and transportation funding by repealing revenues dedicated for those purposes.”

Allen’s lawyers said the description was fundamentally deceptive. Last week, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley agreed: “The Attorney General’s title and summary … must be changed to avoid misleading the voters and creating prejudice against the measure,” he wrote.

The revision Frawley ordered: “Repeals recently enacted gas and diesel taxes and vehicle registration fees. Eliminates road repair and transportation programs funded by these taxes and fees.”

The perception of attorneys general using ballot language to manipulate voters has been common for decades.

When Becerra’s predecessor, fellow Democrat Kamala Harris, was attorney general before her election in November to the U.S. Senate, Republicans alleged she was particularly ready to put her thumb on the scale. The ballot description for 2016’s successful Proposition 58 made it seem as if it reinforced English-learning standards in state public schools when its primary intent was to repeal mandatory English-only immersion programs required by 1998’s Proposition 227. In 2015, Harris was trashed by the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board for effectively killing pension reform measures with what the board called ballot descriptions that sounded like “union talking points.”

When Gov. Jerry Brown was attorney general before Harris, his office also courted controversy. Two of his ballot descriptions were castigated by state judges in the same week in August 2010.

One was for Proposition 23, an unsuccessful measure which would have suspended implementation of state climate-change pollution rules. The initial ballot language was condemned as prejudicial and misleading by Frawley, the same judge who recently ruled against Becerra.

Two days after Frawley’s ruling, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette rejected ballot language for Proposition 25. The successful ballot measure’s key change was to allow the state Legislature to approve a state budget on a simple majority vote. The ballot language Brown approved made it appear as if the measure’s main intent was to reinforce the requirement that the Legislature could only approve tax increases on a two-thirds vote of both the Assembly and the Senate.

Republican attorneys general also accused of voter manipulation

But in the 20th century, when it wasn’t unusual to have Republicans holding statewide office in California, GOP attorneys general drew fire as well for their perceived ballot language machinations.

The most famous example was in 1978, when California voters approved Proposition 13 to put sharp limits on how much property taxes could increase annually. Neither the ballot title or summary approved by GOP Attorney General Evelle Younger mentioned that it also would raise the threshold for raising taxes in the Legislature to a two-thirds vote.

In 1996, Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren also drew fire over the ballot language he approved for Proposition 209, a successful measure limiting the use of racial preferences by state government. In 2012, Chronicle editorial page editor John Diaz revisited criticism first made in 1996, arguing that Lungren used “loaded words” to sell opposition to affirmative action.

The most significant measures passed long before the session’s deadline. In April, lawmakers passed a controversial 12-cents-a-gallon gas-tax increase by a razor-thin margin. The law also increased vehicle-license fees. In July, they passed a 10-year extension of the state’s cap-and-trade program, with the help of several Republican legislators. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the measure could increase gas prices as much as 63 cents a gallon by 2021.

But the final hours of the session were still filled with tension. The housing package worked out between Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders had stalled in the final days, but snuck past the finish line. The package includes three bills. One (Senate Bill 35) would streamline the approval process for high-density affordable housing projects, but requires contractors to pay union-based prevailing wage rates on those subsidized projects in return.

The other two parts of the deal have a bigger tax-and-spend element to them. SB2 imposes new fees of $75 to $225 on various real-estate transactions to help fund subsidized high-density housing projects. SB3 will place before voters on the November 2018 ballot a $3 billion state housing bond that likewise will fund the construction of low-income housing units.

The gas tax increase has sparked a GOP-led recall effort of Fullerton-area Democrat Josh Newman, mainly because of his vote to support the increase – and because he represents a GOP-heavy district. Democrats passed two bills this session to change the recall rules to help the embattled senator, but that issue is working its way through the courts. If Newman loses, Democrats would lose their supermajority in the Senate. Anti-tax activists also are gathering signatures for an initiative that would repeal the new gas tax and license fees.

Nevertheless, some commentators were relieved that the session wasn’t worse, from a tax-hiking perspective. Joel Fox, editor of Fox and Hounds Daily, referred to this as a “tax-happy session,” but noted the California Chamber of Commerce’s success in defeating nine so-called “job killer” bills that proposed some form of tax increase.

Some of these defeated tax proposals include: A tax on contractors who do business with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; excise taxes on manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers of distilled beverages; an excise tax on distributors of sweetened soft drinks to fund a new health program; an increase in the personal income tax of 14.3 percent; a tax on opioid distributors; a new retail tax to fund affordable housing; expansion of the capital gains tax; and a measure to lower the vote threshold for local property tax increases.

California Democratic leaders spent a lot of time this session positioning themselves to resist the Donald Trump presidency. Many efforts involved little more than posturing and press conferences, but the Legislature passed three substantive bills that are designed to either affect the next presidential election or confront the Trump administration over its controversial immigration policies.

For instance, the Legislature passed SB568, which moves up the state’s presidential primary. It now occurs late in the primary process in June, but would move to March. That would make California the fifth state to vote for president in the 2020 election, provided other states don’t play leapfrog with their dates. California’s voters currently have little say in the presidential races because the nominees are fairly obvious by June.

“Winning big in California could help a Democrat clinch the nomination in the spring instead of the summer,” according to The Washington Post’s analysis. That could help defeat Trump in the next election because “if you can wrap up the primary in the spring, you have more time to focus on taking out an incumbent president.” It could also help Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti or Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., both of whom are eyeing a presidential run.

The Post also pointed to two other anti-Trump measures now on the governor’s desk. SB149 requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to be eligible to run in the state’s primary election. That’s obviously aimed at Trump, who refused to release his returns in the 2016 race. Most controversially, lawmakers passed a “sanctuary state” bill (SB54) that forbids state and local authorities from cooperating with federal officials to deport illegal immigrants. That sets up a serious showdown with the administration, which has threatened to withhold federal funds from localities that embrace sanctuary status.

Finally, California’s politically powerful unions got many of their priorities through this year’s legislative session. The most far-reaching measure, Assembly Bill 1513, would provide the names and personal information of home-care workers who work for private companies. That would enable unions to contact private-sector workers for organizing purposes.

The Legislature also passed Senate Bill 63, which expands the state’s family leave law, applying it to companies with at least 20 employees. It also passed AB1461, which would require employees at some companies that provide meal-delivery services to get a “food-handlers’ card.” Similar to the home-care bill, unions would then have access to these workers’ private information for organizing purposes.

The Legislature passed some other workers’ rights bills. AB168 bans employers from asking for an applicant’s salary history. That was posited as a women’s rights issue, as backers claim that providing pay information makes it harder for women to receive higher pay scales. Another bill (AB1008) would not allow employers to ask applicants about prior criminal convictions until a tentative job offer is made.

The Sacramento Bee noted that not all labor-backed bills succeeded: “Heavy opposition from the dialysis industry blocked SB349, which would have set staffing levels for those clinics” and opposition from county governments blocked a bill (AB1250) that would have largely banned counties from contracting out many services. AB568 did pass, however. It requires school districts, charters and community colleges to provide six weeks of paid leave for pregnancy-related reasons.

Lawmakers didn’t shy away from hot-button social issues. SB179 provides a gender-neutral option called “non-binary” for driver’s licenses. And AB1209 “will require large companies to report their mean and median salary data by classification and gender to the Secretary of State, who will post the data online,” as the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Critics complain the state didn’t deal with several pressing financial issues, ranging from California’s exploding unfunded pension liabilities to reforming the California Environmental Quality Act, which is widely blamed for encouraging lawsuits that delay needed construction projects. The Legislature certainly didn’t control spending this year either, as it approved a budget that sets every manner of spending record.

The governor has until Oct. 15 to make his decision on the bills that made it to his desk.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.