Bill

SACRAMENTO — Legislation to eliminate student smoking areas on public high school campuses gained final legislative passage Wednesday night and was sent to Gov. George Deukmejian.

The Assembly voted 51 to 22 for the bill, providing 10 more votes than the simple majority required. A spokesman for Deukmejian said that the governor had not yet taken a position on the measure, which passed the Senate on Aug. 14.

Under the bill–which reverses an 8-year-old state policy that seeks to accommodate and control student smokers–pupils found to be possessing tobacco products at school would be subject to suspension or expulsion. Tobacco also would be prohibited at school-sponsored events.

Proponents of the measure said that providing smoking areas on campus makes a mockery of an existing state law making it illegal to sell or give tobacco products to minors.

“It’s sheer, utter hypocrisy that this bill is trying to correct,” the bill’s author, Assemblyman William J. Filante (R-Greenbrae), said during the floor debate.

Assembly Republican leader Pat Nolan of Glendale said, “We’ve outlawed minors (from) smoking and all this is saying is that (law) will be enforced in public buildings called schools.”

The 1978 law that allows school districts to set up campus smoking areas was adopted mainly to move student smokers from the lavatories and into areas separate from other students.

Filante said when the law was adopted eight years ago, health risks associated with the use of tobacco products, such as cigarettes, were not proven.

“We didn’t know what we know today. We didn’t know how much tobacco is involved with disease,” he said.

Opponents argued that the decision to offer smoking areas should be left to local school districts.

“It’s taking away one of the few local controls a school board has and leaving them defenseless. This is a bad idea,” Thomas M. Hannigan (D-Fairfield) said.

Hannigan contended that students who smoke simply will move back into the lavatories and “to the back of school buses.”

“It’s going to shift the problem to some other area of the school grounds,” he said.

About half of California’s 1,096 school districts allow smoking on campus. None of the 49 high schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District permit smoking on campus.

The bill was backed by the attorney general’s office, the California State School Board, and more than 30 health and education organizations.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers on Friday announced a landmark deal with Uber and Lyft to allow hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers to unionize and bargain collectively while still being classified as independent contractors.

The compromise between labor unions and the Silicon Valley companies, backed by Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire, would advance a collective bargaining bill through the Legislature along with a bill backed by Uber and Lyft that would significantly reduce the companies’ insurance requirements.

The deal is a major development in the years-long tussle between organized labor and Silicon Valley over rights for independent contractors.

Labor leaders from Service Employees International Union California, a powerful union that has been working for years to organize app-based drivers, said the deal is the largest expansion of private sector collective bargaining rights in California history.

“Labor and industry sat down together, worked through their differences, and found common ground,” Newsom said in a statement. The agreement, he said, will “empower hundreds of thousands of drivers while making rideshare more affordable for millions of Californians.”

With support from Rivas and McGuire, both bills are expected to sail through the Legislature before the session ends in mid-September. The agreement does not apply to other types of gig workers, including those who deliver food through apps like DoorDash.

The two bills “represent a compromise that lowers costs for riders while creating stronger voices for drivers,” said Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for California, in a prepared statement.

The deal marks a new chapter in nearly a decade of tension between technology companies and state lawmakers over the employment status of the tens of thousands of Californians who do gig work for app-based companies.

“This moment has been a long fight for over a decade in the making,” said Tia Orr, the executive director of SEIU California.

After the California Legislature in 2019 rewrote employment law in 2019, clarifying and limiting when businesses can classify workers as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft went to the ballot in California to exempt their drivers.

When California voters passed Proposition 22, the ballot measure funded by Uber and Lyft, in 2020, drivers were classified as independent contractors and, under federal law, do not have the right to organize. Prop. 22 also explicitly barred drivers from collectively bargaining over their compensation, benefits and working conditions.

But SEIU California argued that court decisions over Prop. 22 left an opening for the state Legislature to create a process for drivers to unionize.

Earlier this year, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) introduced the collective bargaining bill, AB 1340, which Uber and Lyft initially opposed.

The bill allows drivers to negotiate their pay and other terms of their agreements with the companies and exempts workers from the state and federal antitrust laws that normally prohibit collective action by independent contractors.

Under federal law, employees in the U.S. can unionize by holding an election or reaching a voluntary agreement with their employers for a specific union to represent them.

The process for California Uber and Lyft drivers would be somewhat different. The bill says drivers can select a bargaining representative by collecting signatures from at least 10% of active drivers, then petitioning the state’s Public Employment Relations Board for a certification.

That path to collective bargaining mirrors a ballot initiative approved by Massachusetts voters last fall that was also backed by SEIU, which allowed drivers to form a union after collecting signatures from at least 25% of active drivers in the state.

Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who studies the effect of technology on workers, said the compromise reached by California lawmakers may not be strong enough to ensure that drivers can reach a fair contract.

The bill does not clarify whether drivers would be protected if they collectively protested or went on strike, she said, and doesn’t require that the companies provide data about wages.

“These are the crux of what makes a union strong and the very, very bottom line of what members need and want,” Dubal said. “That they couldn’t achieve those things — that’s a win for Uber.”

Uber driver Margarita Peñalosa, 45, of Los Angeles, said she realized she needed a union after being temporarily deactivated from the app, and losing three days of income, when a passenger who reeked of marijuana left behind a lingering smell in her car that other riders then complained about.

“That experience made me realize how powerless we can be,” she said. She said she hoped that a collective bargaining process would create a “clear, fair appeals process” for rider complaints.

A Southern California group that counts some 20,000 drivers as members said they had lobbied for provisions to strengthen the bill — including protections that would give drivers the right to strike and more enforcement resources for the state board tasked with overseeing the process — but had been largely shut out of negotiations.

“We were not invited into conversations about this, and we were banging on the door,” said Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United.

Representatives from SEIU and Wicks’ office met multiple times with Rideshare Drivers United about their proposals and discussed why some weren’t included, said someone familiar with the negotiations who was not authorized to speak publicly. For example, that person said, strike protections could open up the bill to attack for potentially violating antitrust laws.

“While we always give fair consideration to suggested amendments, not all are ultimately viable,” Wicks said. She added that her office heard from dozens of constituents and advocates over months of public debate, and “any suggestion otherwise is disingenuous.”

Despite the weaknesses in the law, Moore said, she still hopes that it will help, since right now, she said, drivers “have no labor rights and our wages are in the dungeon.”

“We will do what we can with duct tape and a few paper clips and a little extra wax to actually wage a fight,” she said.

The insurance bill, backed by Uber and Lyft and introduced by state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-Yolo), would reduce the amount of insurance that companies like Uber and Lyft are required to provide for rides.

Currently, the companies must carry $1 million in coverage per rideshare driver for accidents caused by other drivers who are uninsured or underinsured. The companies have argued that current insurance requirements are so high that they encourage litigation for insurance payouts and create higher costs for passengers.

The agreement instead calls for $60,000 in uninsured motorist coverage per rideshare driver and $300,000 per accident.

Cabaldon said that the changes would eliminate “outsized insurance requirements that don’t apply to any other forms of transportation, such as taxis, buses, or limos.”

Frank McCourt will have to pursue his proposed Dodger Stadium gondola without legislation that would have limited potential legal challenges to the project.

After The Times reported on the legislation, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council publicly opposed it, asking a state Assembly committee to strip the language that would have benefited the gondola project or kill the bill entirely.

On Friday, the committee stripped the language and moved ahead with the remainder of the bill, which is designed to expedite transit projects in California. Under the now-removed language, future legal challenges to certain Los Angeles transit projects would have been limited to 12 months.

The language of the bill did not cite any specific project, but a staff report called the gondola proposal “one project that would benefit.”

A court fight over Metro’s approval of the environmental impact report for the project is at 17 months and counting.

In a letter to state legislators in which she shared the council resolution opposing the language in question, City Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez said the language would amount to “carve outs” from a worthy bill in order to ease challenges to “a billionaire’s private project.”

McCourt, the former Dodgers owner, first proposed a gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium in 2018. The project requires approvals from four public agencies, including the City Council, which is expected to consider the gondola after the completion of a city-commissioned Dodger Stadium traffic study next year.

HUNDREDS of thousands of Brits could be hit by a surprise £500 tax bill as a new rule comes into effect. 

The new scheme could affect nearly 900,000 business owners across the UK. 

3

3

The Government’s new Making Tax Digital scheme will require people over a certain income threshold to keep electronic records and file updates every financial quarter.

The move is part of the Government’s efforts to crack down on tax fraud, which cost Britain £12.4 billion from 2021 to 2022.

However, financial advisors have warned that the cost of reporting your tax figures could cost up to £500 a year once staff training, software and admin time are factored in – according to George Holmes, managing director of Aurora Capital. 

Only people who earn £50,000 from self-employment or from rental properties will be subject to the new rules.

Ahead of the change, Craig Ogilvie, director of Making Tax Digital at HMRC, said: “With April 2026 on the horizon, we are issuing letters to customers we believe will be mandated, outlining specific requirements and timelines.”

He added: “We urge those who meet the mandate criteria to join our testing programme on GOV.UK now to help shape the final service and make your transition smoother.”

An estimated 864,000 sole traders and landlords will need to comply with the new rules.

James Murray MP, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said: “MTD for Income Tax is an essential part of our plan to transform the UK’s tax system into one that supports economic growth.”

Murray added: “By modernising how people manage their tax, we’re helping businesses work more efficiently and productively while ensuring everyone pays their fair share.”

The news comes after experts warned Rachel Reeves that she would have to find £50 billion to plug a black hole in Britain’s finances. 

The Chancellor has remained committed to her fiscal rules, which requires the UK to have financial cushion of £9.9billion by the end of the decade.

In order to put the UK’s finances on a firm footing, experts from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have said that Ms Reeves will have to raise taxes.

Prof Stephen Millard, from the institute, said: “We would advocate building a bigger buffer. 

“To do that requires moderate but sustained increases in taxes.”

The think tank also upped its growth forecast for this year to 1.3 per cent but knocked their prediction for 2026 down to 1.2 per cent from 1.5 per cent.

Meanwhile, tax refund letters have started landing on doorsteps across the UK but Brits have been warned to watch out for scams.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) request by The Sun found that HMRC refunded a staggering £8.3billion in overpaid tax from 2022 until 2023 — with the average worker pocketing £943.

However, any letter or email which requires you to give your credit card details, transfer money or click a link should be avoided at all costs. 

3

The high-powered law firm that racked up big bills working to keep the city of Los Angeles from losing control over its homeless programs is now looking to increase its contract by $5 million.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto has asked the City Council to increase the city’s contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP to $5.9 million, up from the $900,000 approved three months ago, according to a confidential memo she sent to council members.

Gibson Dunn has been defending the city since mid-May in a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Alliance for L.A. Human Rights, which resulted in a settlement agreement requiring the construction of new homeless housing and the removal of street encampments. The L.A. Alliance alleges that the city has repeatedly violated the agreement.

The Times reported last month that Gibson Dunn billed the city $1.8 million for about two weeks of work, with 15 attorneys charging $1,295 per hour and others charging lower amounts.

By Aug. 8, Gibson Dunn had racked up $3.2 million in billings in the case, according to the city attorney’s memo, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times. Those invoices arrived during a difficult financial period for the city, caused in part by a surge in expensive legal payouts.

Much of the firm’s work was focused on its preparation for, and participation in, a lengthy hearing before a federal judge who was weighing the Alliance’s request to hand control over the city’s homeless initiatives to a third party.

Gibson Dunn was retained by the city one week before the hearing, which lasted seven court days, at eight or more hours per day.

“The evidentiary hearing was more extensive than anticipated, with the plaintiffs calling more than a dozen witnesses and seeking to compel City officials to testify,” Feldstein Soto wrote in her memo.

Feldstein Soto’s office did not immediately respond to inquiries from The Times. But the city attorney has been outspoken in defending Gibson Dunn’s work, saying the firm kept the city’s homeless initiatives from being turned over to a receiver — a move that would have stripped authority from Bass and the City Council.

Gibson Dunn also prevented several elected officials — a group that includes Bass — from having to take the stand, Feldstein Soto said in her memo.

City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez said she would vote against a request to spend another $5 million on Gibson Dunn. That money would be better spent on ensuring the city complies with its legal obligations in the case, which include the construction of 12,915 homeless beds and the removal of 9,800 encampments, she said.

Rodriguez, who also voted against the initial round of funding for Gibson Dunn, said $5 million would be enough to cover “time limited” housing subsidies for at least 500 households in her northeast San Fernando Valley district for an entire year.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to house people,” she said. “So let’s spend the resources housing them, rather than being in a protracted legal battle.”

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney who represents the L.A. Alliance, called the request for nearly $6 million “ludicrous,” saying the city should focus on compliance with the settlement agreement.

“Gibson is a very good firm. Lawyers cost money. I get it,” he said. “But the city has hundreds of capable lawyers, and the notion that they need to spend this kind of money to prevent a court from holding them to their obligations and their promises, it raises real questions about the decision-making in the city on this issue.”

“For a city that claims to be in fiscal crisis, this is nonsense,” Umhofer added.

In her memo, Feldstein Soto said the additional $5 million would cover Gibson Dunn’s work in the case through June 2027, when the city’s legal settlement with the L.A. Alliance is set to expire.

During that period, Gibson Dunn would appeal an order by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, arguing that the judge “reinterpreted” some of the city’s obligations under the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said in her memo. The law firm would also seek to “reform” the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said.

Theane Evangelis, an attorney with Gibson Dunn who led the team assigned to the L.A. Alliance case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Her firm has played a huge role in redefining the way cities are permitted to address homelessness.

Representing Grants Pass, Ore., the firm secured a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court upholding laws that prohibit homeless people from camping in public spaces.

The firm brought a new, more pugnacious approach to the L.A. Alliance case, issuing hundreds of objections throughout the seven-day hearing and working to undermine the credibility of key witnesses.

A month later, Carter issued a 62-page order declining to turn L.A.’s homeless programs over to a third party. However, he also found that the city had failed to comply with the settlement agreement.

Feldstein Soto said the additional $5 million would allow the firm to carry out its work through June 2027, when the Alliance settlement is scheduled to expire.

Gibson Dunn’s legal team would continue to pursue the city’s appeal while also helping to produce the quarterly reports that are required by the settlement agreement.

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday promised to quickly sign off on a new, Republican-leaning congressional voting map gerrymandered to help the GOP maintain its slim majority in Congress.

“One Big Beautiful Map has passed the Senate and is on its way to my desk, where it will be swiftly signed into law,” Abbott said in a statement. The bill’s name is a nod to President Trump’s signature tax and spending bill, as Trump urged Abbott to redraw the congressional districts to favor Republicans.

Texas lawmakers approved the final plans just hours before, inflaming an already tense battle unfolding among states as governors from both parties pledge to redraw maps with the goal of giving their political candidates a leg up in the 2026 midterm elections.

In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has approved a special election in November for voters to decide whether to adopt a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more House seats next year.

Meanwhile, Trump has pushed other Republican-controlled states, including Indiana and Missouri, to also revise their maps to add more winnable GOP seats. Ohio Republicans were also already scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan.

In Texas, the map includes five new districts that would favor Republicans.

Democrats vow to challenge it in court

The effort by Trump and Texas’ Republican-majority Legislature prompted state Democrats to hold a two-week walkout and kicked off a wave of redistricting efforts across the country.

Democrats had prepared for a final show of resistance, with plans to push the Senate vote into the early morning hours in a last-ditch attempt to delay passage. Yet Republicans blocked those efforts by citing a rule violation.

“What we have seen in this redistricting process has been maneuvers and mechanisms to shut down people’s voices,” said state Sen. Carol Alvarado, leader of the Senate Democratic caucus, on social media after the new map was finalized by the GOP-controlled Senate.

Democrats had already delayed the bill’s passage during hours of debate, pressing Republican Sen. Phil King, the measure’s sponsor, on the proposal’s legality, with many alleging that the redrawn districts violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting voters’ influence based on race.

King rejected that accusation, saying, “I had two goals in mind: That all maps would be legal and would be better for Republican congressional candidates in Texas.

“There is extreme risk the Republican majority will be lost” in the U.S. House of Representatives if the map does not pass, King said.

Battle for the House waged via redistricting

On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing districts puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. The incumbent president’s party usually loses seats in the midterms.

The Texas redraw is already reshaping the 2026 race, with Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the dean of the state’s congressional delegation, announcing Thursday that he will not seek reelection to his Austin-based seat if the new map takes effect. Under the proposed map, Doggett’s district would overlap with that of another Democratic incumbent, Rep. Greg Casar.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade, immediately after a census. Though some states have their own limitations, there is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that the Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering to increase a party’s clout, only gerrymandering that’s explicitly done by race.

Other states

More Democratic-run states have commission systems like California’s or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, cannot draw new maps until 2028, and even then only with voter approval.

Republicans and some Democrats championed a 2008 ballot measure that established California’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, along with a 2010 one that extended its role to drawing congressional maps.

Both sides have shown concern over what the redistricting war could lead to.

California Assemblyman James Gallagher, the Republican minority leader, said Trump was “wrong” to push for new Republican seats elsewhere. But he warned that Newsom’s approach, which the governor has said is an effort to “fight fire with fire,” is dangerous.

“You move forward fighting fire with fire, and what happens?” Gallagher asked. “You burn it all down.”

Vertuno, Cappelletti and Golden write for the Associated Press and reported from Austin, Washington and Seattle, respectively. AP writer Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.

New Delhi, India – The Indian government tabled a new bill earlier this week in parliament under which a prime minister, state chief minister or other federal or state minister can be removed from office if they are facing criminal investigations – even before they are convicted.

The draft law proposed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) mandates the automatic removal of elected officials if they are detained for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a minimum sentence of five years.

Even as Amit Shah, India’s home minister who is widely seen as Modi’s deputy, presented the bill in parliament, members of the opposition ripped apart legislative papers and hurled them at Shah, before the house was suspended amid chaos.

The opposition, strengthened in the 2024 national election in which the BJP lost its majority and was forced to turn to smaller allies to stay in power, has slammed the bill as an example of “undemocratic” weaponising of laws against dissent.

Meanwhile, the Indian government says the proposed law will rein in corrupt and criminal public representatives.

So, is the proposed law authoritarian or democratic? What’s behind the opposition’s allegations against the Modi government? Or, as some experts argue, is it all a trap?

What’s the bill proposing?

The Modi government tabled the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, in parliament on Wednesday.

As per the amendment, an elected leader would automatically lose their post if they are arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a minimum sentence of five years.

The bill also includes a provision for reappointment, allowing leaders to return to their posts if they secure bail or are acquitted.

The government argues that the measure is a step towards reinforcing accountability and public trust, arguing that those facing serious criminal charges should not continue in constitutional office.

The amendment has been referred to a joint parliamentary committee – a panel consisting of legislators from both the government and opposition parties – for its deliberations, following opposition protests.

What’s the opposition saying?

Opposition leaders have alleged that the proposed amendment could be misused by the Modi government against critics and political rivals.

That risk, they say, is especially high since law enforcement agencies that come under the federal government only need to arrest and press serious charges against opposition members, and keep them in custody for 30 days – without worrying about actually proving those charges in a court of law.

Manish Tewari, MP from the opposition Congress party, said that “the bill is against the principle of presumption of innocence” until proven guilty.

Asaduddin Owaisi, another opposition MP from Hyderabad city in southern India, said this law would be used to topple adversarial state governments.

Critics have also pointed to how, under India’s constitution, state governments have the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order. The proposed law, they say, upends that principle.

Applying this law to state leaders undermines India’s federal structure, he said, noting that this weakens the people’s right to choose governments.

“The bill would change the federal contract in fundamental ways, including balance of power between centre and states, giving the centre enormous leverage to sabotage elected governments – and, of course, to the space for oppositional politics,” said Asim Ali, a political observer based in New Delhi.

Are the opposition’s allegations founded?

Since 2014, when Modi came to power in New Delhi, the opposition has alleged that the government has increasingly used agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), tasked with fighting financial crimes, and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the country’s premier investigative body, to target rival politicians.

In March 2023, opposition parties petitioned in India’s top court against “a clear pattern of using investigative agencies … to target, debilitate and in fact crush the entire political opposition and other vocal citizens”.

The petition noted that since 2014, 95 percent of cases taken up by the CBI and the ED have been against politicians from the opposition. That’s a 60 percentage point and 54 percentage point rise, respectively, from the days of the previous Congress-led government.

In parliament, 46 percent of current members face criminal cases, with 31 percent of them charged with serious crimes like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping and crimes against women.

In the run-up to the 2024 general election, investigative agencies had arrested multiple opposition leaders, including Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy, Manish Sisodia. The ED also arrested Hemant Soren, just hours after he resigned as the chief minister of the eastern state of Jharkhand, on accusations of corruption.

In the last 12 years of BJP rule in India, at least 12 sitting opposition ministers have been detained and jailed for more than 30 days  – nine of them from Delhi and the eastern state of West Bengal.

Is this a distraction?

Some political observers and the Modi government’s critics say yes.

A constitutional amendment in India requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of the parliament, which the BJP and its allies lack.

Modi’s government currently survives with the support of the BJP’s alliance partners, after it fell short of a majority in the 2024 national election.

In recent weeks, the Modi government has faced mounting opposition criticism over a controversial revision of electoral rolls ahead of a crucial state election, allegations of vote theft, and heat over foreign policy challenges as India battles 50 percent tariffs from the United States under President Donald Trump.

It is against that backdrop that the bill – which Ali, the political observer, described as “authoritarian” yet “symbolic” in nature – is significant, say experts.

“Even if the bill does not become a law, it will anyway force a showdown to make opposition parties vote against the bill,” Ali said, “so that they can use that as ammunition against them in [election] campaigning.”

Since floating the bill, Modi, his government and the BJP have been accusing critics of being sympathetic to criminals in politics.

On Friday, speaking at a rally in election-bound Bihar state, Modi referred to Kejriwal’s refusal for months after his arrest on money laundering charges to quit from the Delhi chief minister’s post.

“Some time ago, we saw how files were being signed from jail and how government orders were given from jail. If leaders have such an attitude, how can we fight corruption?” Modi said.

Rasheed Kidwai, a political analyst, said that while the bill is draconian and could be misused, Modi’s party, for now, thinks it can help them consolidate urban, middle-class votes for the upcoming election in Bihar.

“The opposition is in a bind because public opinion is against corruption,” he said. “It’s a double-edged sword.”

Aug. 20 (UPI) — Texas state House Republicans are about to pass their redistricting bill Wednesday as the session reconvenes at 11 a.m. EDT Wednesday.

Texas Republicans will pass the bill, encouraged by President Donald Trump, which will likely give the state an extra five Republican seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, after weeks of protests from Democrats in the state House.

Because of their minority in the House, Democrats have no way to block passage of the redistricting bills. They have vowed to fight in the courts to prevent the new maps from being used.

In the first special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, Democrats fled the state for two weeks so that the House wouldn’t have a quorum. Once the session timed out and Abbott called a new special session, Democrats returned to the state and a new battle ensued.

Once Democrats came back to the capitol in Austin, they were not allowed to leave the chamber without a “permission slip,” a police escort and 24-hour surveillance to ensure they don’t leave the state again.

One lawmaker, Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, spent Monday night in the capitol building, refusing to sign the paper. She said she plans to stay until Wednesday’s session. Since then, several other Democrats tore up their waivers and joined her.

“This is a civil discussion and disagreement, and in order to win, the other side is willing to use force — to use the arms of a state to get what they want. Good guys don’t do that,” Texas House Democratic Caucus leader Rep. Gene Wu, told CNN.

Wu and Rep. Vince Perez, D-El Paso, who signed the waivers, stayed with Collier through Monday night.

Wednesday’s session is expected to last all day and possibly into the evening, as there must be time to consider the map, consider amendments and have several votes.

“It’s going to be a long day,” Rep Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, told the New York Times.

The new state map introduced last month has been revised. It would still add the five seats but also strengthen already-Republican districts by adding Republican voters to those districts. The state’s current districts, passed four years ago, are already being challenged in court, and a ruling is expected this fall.

“Please pass this map ASAP,” Trump posted on social media Monday. “Thank you, Texas!”

Republicans have 25 of the state’s 38 seats.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has already begun the process of redistricting the state to counteract Texas’ efforts. Other Republican- and Democrat-led states have vowed to get in on the process.

SACRAMENTO — California’s push to redraw the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort.

California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections.

The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress.

In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort.

In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature.

The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as “gut and amend,” where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal.

The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court’s intervention, the state could enact “significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,” according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon.

Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters.

“When I go to a restaurant, I don’t need to meet the chef,” said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz).

Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission’s work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday.

If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4.

On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges.

After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis).

“I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,” Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours.

Tangipa and the committee’s vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort.

Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation.

“That’s insanity, and that’s heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,” Tangipa said. “How can you say you actually care about the people of California?

Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long.

In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented.

Tom Willis, Newsom’s campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was “publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.”

But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn’t answer, because he “wasn’t a part of that process.”

In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt.

“This is a partisan gerrymander,” she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. “That’s what we’re talking about here.”

Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, “It made me salivate.”

California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state’s independent redistricting rules because they would not “call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.”

But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill.

“it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,” the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. “These changes to the Elections Code … would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.”

After a tense and sharply divided debate Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council voted to oppose a state bill that aims to vastly expand high-density housing near public transit hubs, arguing that the state should leave important planning decisions to local legislators.

The council voted 8 to 5 to oppose Senate Bill 79, which seeks to mitigate the state’s housing shortage by allowing buildings of up to nine stories near certain train stops and slightly smaller buildings near some bus stops throughout California.

“A one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento is not safe, and it’s not responsible,” said City Councilmember Traci Park at a news conference before the vote.

Park, who was joined at the news conference by Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and John Lee, said the bill was an attempt by its sponsor, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), and other state legislators to “hijack” local planning from the city.

Lee, who authored the resolution opposing the bill, called it “not planning” but “chaos.”

Wiener lamented the City Council’s vote.

“Opponents of SB 79 are offering no real solutions to address our housing shortage at the scale needed to make housing more affordable,” Wiener said in a statement. “California’s affordability crisis threatens our economy, our diversity, and our fundamental strength as a state.”

In addition to creating more affordable housing, the bill would increase public transit ridership, reduce traffic and help the state meet its climate goals, he said.

Councilmember Nithya Raman, who voted against opposing the bill, said the city’s housing crisis is so dire that the council needs to work with the drafters of the bill — even if there are elements of it they do not support.

“Overall, we talk a lot about our housing crisis on this body, but our actions have not met the moment,” she said. “If I thought that this body was acting in good faith to address our housing crisis, I would support this [resolution].”

The bill, which passed the Senate and is before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would allow heights of nine stories near major transit hubs, such as certain Metro train stops in L.A. A quarter-mile from a stop, buildings could be seven stories tall, and a half-mile from a stop, they could be six stories. Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be included in the new zoning rules.

Near smaller transit stops, such as light rail or bus rapid transit, the allowed heights would be slightly lower.

Next week, the Appropriations Committee will determine whether the bill goes to the Assembly floor for a vote. If passed in both chambers, the bill would go to Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign by mid-October.

The City Council’s resolution opposing the bill has no binding effect on the state Legislature but gives the council a platform to potentially lobby in Sacramento against its passage. The resolution also called for the city to be exempt from the bill because it has a state-approved housing plan.

“If they hadn’t taken a position on this, the state Legislature would say, ‘Well, the city of L.A. doesn’t care,’” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former City Council member and now the director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Mayor Karen Bass has not yet taken a position on the bill. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto came out against it in May, arguing that it would cost the city billions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure such as sewage and electrical systems to handle an influx of residents in previously low-density neighborhoods.

Wiener’s office said the bill allows for cities to exempt some properties near transit hubs if they meet density guidelines.

This year, the City Council passed the Citywide Housing Incentive Program, which provides incentives for developers to build market-rate and affordable units and aims to boost building along commercial corridors and in dense residential neighborhoods.

The council passed the ordinance, which left single-family zones largely untouched after pushback from homeowners groups, a week before a state deadline for the city to have a housing plan in place. As part of the plan, the city was required to find land where an additional 255,000 homes could be built.