legislation

Coachella is never cheap, much less this year’s sold-out edition with the long-awaited live return of Justin Bieber. But if you’re looking to score a last-minute pass, you likely lost your swag when you saw the resale prices on secondary sites like StubHub.

As of Friday afternoon, you’ll pay between $4,000 and $5,000 for a sold-out weekend one GA pass on StubHub. (Prices are lower for weekend two on Coachella’s official resale site. Weekend one tickets originally retailed for $649).

“That’s insane,” said California Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), who has introduced AB 1720, the California Fans First Act, to combat extortionate ticket re-selling. Haney’s bill would ban reselling tickets at more than 10% above face value in California.

“We’ve allowed live events including Coachella to be dominated by speculators who aren’t fans, but who simply want to profit off these events,” he continued. “They didn’t contribute to Coachella, they don’t play an instrument. They’re using events as a way to screw over fans and jack up prices. The result is that people who are Justin Bieber fans pay eight or nine times over the face value of a ticket.”

The proposal comes as the U.S. Department of Justice recently announced a settlement with Live Nation in a federal suit that will allow it to keep control of Ticketmaster. Many states, including California, are looking at options to pursue their own legal action and legislation to fix a ticket market fans have come to see as deeply broken.

Coachella, produced by Goldenvoice and AEG, isn’t affiliated with Live Nation or Ticketmaster. But eye-watering secondary market prices are an example of how desirable concerts have become a hot commodity for predatory resellers.

“We’ve got to break up [Live Nation’s] monopoly, but there is a problem with the secondary market and the ways we’ve allowed scalpers to crowd out fans. That exists on all platforms,” Haney said. “We’ve got to address monopolies and ridiculous fees in direct ticket sales, but we also can’t allow scalpers to buy up tickets to profit off the art of others. I have no doubt that if we didn’t allow gambling on ticket prices, there would still be Coachella tickets available for fans.”

The issue of high concert prices is multifaceted, and artists and promoters play more of a role than many fans want to believe. The technology exists for many tours to do what Haney’s bill proposes — cap resale prices — on their own. Fans clearly are willing to pay extremely high prices for in-demand performances like Coachella.

“If people are willing to pay a lot to see a performance,” Haney said, “Those dollars should go to the artist, to folks who work at the event. If demand is high, tickets may be expensive, but we shouldn’t allow scalpers to create scarcity and higher prices.”

If the California Fans First Act were to pass (it’s still working through the Assembly) it would bring the state‘s ticket market more in line with many European countries that already ban exorbitant resale practices. Other states like New York are considering similar legislation, and in the absence of federal action to address issues in the ticket market, state legislation may be the next best option.

Haney hopes California — a state whose cultural identity and economy is deeply tied to live music — can lead on that front.

“There is no California without creators and culture and music,” he said. “It’s the heart and soul of who we are, it’s a massive part of our economy and part of our culture. We have to make sure creators can receive the support for their art, and that fans have the opportunity to experience it. Right now, we’re losing on both fronts. There’s an urgency for this legislation here more than anywhere because of how central it is to who we are.”

ATLANTA — Over the past three decades, the collection of DNA from convicted criminals has become standard in the U.S. justice system, and many states now also swab people arrested for serious crimes.

Legislation awaiting a final vote in Georgia would take that a step further by collecting DNA from people charged with less serious misdemeanors — but only if federal immigration authorities want them detained. That could include immigrants not ultimately deported.

If enacted, Georgia’s measure would make it the third state to single out immigrants believed to be in the U.S. illegally for the collection of genetic material that wouldn’t be taken from others. Florida passed a similar law in 2023. And Oklahoma in 2009 authorized DNA collection from immigrants in the U.S. illegally, though it remains subject to funding.

The new legislation comes as President Trump’s administration seeks to expand its use of DNA and biometrics in immigration enforcement as it carries out a plan to deport millions of people from the U.S.

“It is one example of something we are seeing across the landscape, which is government actors at all levels vacuuming up DNA in all available contexts,” said Stevie Glaberson, director of research and advocacy at the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University law school.

Immigrant DNA collection has grown in recent years

The FBI launched the National DNA Index System in 1998 to compile DNA samples submitted by federal, state and local authorities. It’s grown in size and scope and now contains more than 26 million DNA profiles, many from people convicted of crimes.

A federal law enacted 20 years ago allowed the attorney general to expand DNA collection to people arrested and to noncitizens detained under federal authority. But because of exceptions authorized by federal officials, few immigrants had their DNA collected.

That changed in 2020, during Trump’s first term, when a new Department of Justice rule took away much of that discretion. Over the next five years, the Department of Homeland Security added the DNA profiles of more than 2.6 million detainees to the national database, according to an analysis by the Center on Privacy and Technology.

The department did not answer questions from the Associated Press about the percentage of detained immigrants whose DNA has been collected during Trump’s second term.

But the department is looking to expand its authority. A proposed rule would allow it to collect DNA, including from U.S. citizens, to determine family relationships in immigrant benefit cases.

States don’t typically collect DNA for misdemeanor arrests

Though many states collect DNA from people arrested for felonies, just 10 states collect it from people arrested for certain misdemeanors, such as sex offenses, and none collect it for all misdemeanor arrests, according to an AP analysis of data compiled by the Boise State University Department of Criminal Justice.

But under the Florida and Oklahoma laws, any arrest could lead to DNA collection for immigrants subject to federal detainer requests. Officials in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation did not respond to questions about whether those laws are being used.

The Georgia legislation would require DNA collection from immigrants facing any misdemeanor or felony charges if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has issued a detainer request but has not picked up the person within 48 hours.

Georgia state Sen. Tim Bearden, a Republican sponsoring the bill, described the measure as a means of solving crimes.

“Technology is changing quickly, and DNA is one of those things that help us tremendously when we’re trying to make sure to bring justice to victims in this state and across this country,” Bearden said at a March hearing.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that “partnerships with law enforcement are critical to having the resources we need to arrest criminal illegal aliens across the country.”

Could a broken tail light lead to a DNA swab?

A 2024 Georgia law mandates that local law enforcement cooperate with federal authorities to identify and detain immigrants in the U.S. illegally, or else lose state funding. This year’s legislation would build upon that.

Some legal experts say it could result in DNA collections from immigrants taken into custody for minor violations. Traffic offenses that are penalized as civil violations in some states are considered misdemeanors in Georgia, making them subject to the new law, said Mazie Lynn Guertin, executive director and policy advocate with the Georgia Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“We don’t think that swabbing a person who’s committed a traffic violation is a boon for public safety,” Guertin said. “The correlation between a broken tail light and a crime that’s solvable with DNA is pretty attenuated in most cases.”

People subject to federal immigration detainer requests aren’t necessarily undocumented or deportable, because they may later prove their legal presence, said Kyle Gomez-Leineweber, director of policy for Common Cause Georgia. But such people could have their DNA collected under the Georgia legislation.

“What this really does is it creates a two-tiered system where some of the DNA would be collected based off of the perception of an individual’s immigration status,” said Gomez-Leineweber.

Legal experts raise questions about constitutional rights

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 upheld a Maryland law allowing DNA to be collected from people charged — but not yet convicted — of certain serious crimes. That law allows DNA to be added to a database after it’s determined there is probable cause to detain someone, provided it’s deleted if the person is not ultimately convicted.

The Maryland case often is cited as justification for an expansion of DNA collection. But some immigrant advocates question whether civil immigration detainers meet the probable cause threshold to make DNA collection acceptable under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“There doesn’t appear to be any kind of meaningful justification for states to step in to require the collection of DNA — of genetic material — from noncitizens in their custody who have merely been accused of a crime, even a low-level crime,” said Jorge Loweree, managing director of the American Immigration Council. “It seems like this is just an effort to increase the surveillance of noncitizens.”

Kramon and Lieb write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo.

There will be no Charlie Kirk highway in his home state of Arizona. The reason: politics.

Exactly whose politics is to blame has become a point of debate.

Kirk, the conservative activist known for his campus debates, was assassinated last year during an event at Utah Valley University. Republicans in Arizona, where Kirk’s Turning Point USA organization is based, passed legislation attempting to add Kirk’s name to Loop 202, a highway circling through the sprawling Phoenix area.

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed it on Friday.

In a veto message to state lawmakers, Hobbs denounced political violence but suggested that Republicans had inappropriately injected politics into a decision rightly left to a state board that names historic highways.

“I will continue working toward solutions that bring people together, but this bill falls short of that standard by inserting politics into a function of government that should remain nonpartisan,” Hobbs wrote.

Republican state Senate President Warren Petersen, who sponsored the legislation, said it was Hobbs who practiced politics by breaking with “a long-standing Arizona tradition” of recognizing people who made an impact on society.

The veto “tells people that recognition now depends on political alignment, not contribution,” Petersen said in a statement. “That’s not how Arizona has ever approached these decisions, and it’s a disappointing shift for our state.”

Lawmakers in more than 20 states have introduced over five dozen bills seeking to honor Kirk, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural. Many propose naming things after Kirk or creating an official day of remembrance. Others invoke Kirk’s name for measures that would protect free speech rights on college campuses or encourage schools to teach about the role of Judeo-Christian values in American history.

Arizona and Florida were among the first states to give final approval to Kirk-inspired legislation.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has yet to act on a bill that would designate a road in Miami-Dade County as “Charlie Kirk Memorial Avenue” while also designating a road in Broward County as “President Donald J. Trump Boulevard.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Meta, YouTube and Snapchat are already under scrutiny for risks they pose for young people. Now they are facing another hurdle in their home state.

California lawmakers are considering legislation to restrict social media use for teens and children under 16 years old. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and others introduced a bipartisan bill that would bar social media platforms from allowing users under 16 years old from creating or maintaining accounts.

The legislation comes amid mounting concerns about how social networks impact the mental health of young people. Anxiety among parents and lawmakers has heightened as platforms and AI chatbots become more intertwined with people’s daily life.

Last month, tech executives, including Meta’s chief executive and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, testified in a landmark trial in Los Angeles over a lawsuit that alleges social media is addictive and harms children.

The trial centers on whether tech companies such as Instagram, which is owned by Meta, and YouTube can be held liable for allegedly promoting a harmful product and addicting users to their platforms.

California has passed legislation before aimed at making social media platforms and chatbots safer but faced pushback from tech industry groups that have sued to stop new laws from taking effect. Tech companies are have responded by releasing more parental controls and restrictions for young users.

Other countries have been moving forward with restrictions on social media. Last year, Australia barred children under 16 years old from having social media accounts.

TechNet, whose members include Meta and Google, said in a statement that it hasn’t taken a position on the California bill but doesn’t believe a ban will effectively achieve the Legislature’s goal’s.

“We support balanced, evidence-based solutions that strengthen protections for young people, equip parents with meaningful tools, and ensure accountability across platforms. Our companies have made significant investments in teen safety and parental controls, and we remain committed to building on that progress,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet Executive Director for California and the Southwest in a statement.

The use of social media by young people has divided tech executives.

Pinterest Chief Executive Bill Ready wrote in an op-ed in TIME published on Friday that governments should follow Australia’s lead and ban social media for kids under 16 years old if tech companies don’t prioritize safety.

“Social media, as it’s configured today, is not safe for young people under 16,” he said.”Instead, it’s been designed to maximize view time, keeping kids glued to a screen with little regard for their well-being.”

Lowenthal’s bill cited social media’s dangers such as “exposure to harmful content, compulsive use patterns, exploitation, and adverse impacts on mental health and well-being.”

“Existing age-based restrictions that rely primarily on user self-attestation have proven ineffective and place an unreasonable burden on children and families rather than on the entities that design, operate, and profit from social media platforms,” the bill states.

A spokesman for Lowenthal didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

WASHINGTON — Republicans launched an unprecedented effort on Tuesday to hold the Senate floor and talk for days about a bill that they know won’t pass — an attempt to capture public attention on legislation requiring stricter voter registration rules as President Trump pressures Congress to act before November’s midterm elections.

The talkathon could last a week or longer, potentially through the weekend, as Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) tries to navigate Trump’s insistence on the issue and Democrats’ united opposition. Trump has urged Thune to scrap the legislative filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the 100-member Senate, or find another workaround to pass the bill, but Thune has repeatedly said he doesn’t have the votes to do that.

Instead, Republicans intend to make a long, noisy show of support for the legislation, which would require Americans to prove they are U.S. citizens before they register to vote and to show identification at the polls, among other things. It’s a risky strategy, with no guarantee it will be enough for Trump, who has said he won’t sign other bills until the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — also known as the SAVE America Act or the SAVE Act — is passed.

The floor debate is expected to eventually end with a failed vote. Republicans need 60 votes to advance the bill to a final vote, but they hold 53 seats, and all 45 Democrats and both independents, who caucus with the Democrats, oppose it.

The debate will “put Democrats on the record,” Thune said. He added that “how it ends remains to be seen.”

The Senate voted 51 to 48 Tuesday to begin the debate, with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski the only Republican voting against moving forward on the bill.

In a social media post on Tuesday morning, Trump issued a warning to any Republican who doesn’t support the bill: “I WILL NEVER (EVER!) ENDORSE ANYONE WHO VOTES AGAINST ‘SAVE AMERICA!!!’”

Creating strict voter registration rules

Trump says, without evidence, that Democrats can only win in the midterms if they cheat and explicitly said Republicans need the SAVE America Act to win in November. The House passed the legislation earlier this year, but the Senate turned to other issues as it became evident that Republicans didn’t have the votes to pass it.

But Trump made clear he wasn’t satisfied and pushed the Senate to act. The Republican president has said he won’t sign other legislation, including a bipartisan housing bill backed by the White House, until the voting bill passes.

The bill contains a slew of provisions that Trump and his most loyal supporters have pushed as part of a broad effort to assert federal control over elections. It would require voters nationwide to provide proof of citizenship when they register and to show accepted voter identification when casting a ballot.

It would also create new penalties for election workers who register voters without proof of citizenship and require states to hand voter data over to the Department of Homeland Security so federal officials could screen for voters who are in the country illegally.

Trump also wants new provisions added to the bill, including a ban on most mail-in ballots.

“It’ll guarantee the midterms,” Trump said of the bill last week. “If you don’t get it, big trouble.”

Democratic opposition to the bill is firm

Democrats and many groups that champion voter access say there is little evidence of noncitizens voting and say the bill would disenfranchise millions of voters — including Republicans — by creating new burdens to prove citizenship.

It is already illegal to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen, but the bill would lay out strict new rules for paperwork that most people would have to present in person to register to vote. Opponents of the measure say those documents are not always readily available for many people and argue that it would kill voter registration efforts and unfairly penalize young people who are registering to vote for the first time, married women who change their last name and people who cannot travel to present their documents, among other groups.

While Republicans have focused on the bill’s new requirements to show identification when they show up to vote, Democrats say they are most concerned that the legislation would allow the federal government to take voters off the rolls.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that Democrats are not opposed to voter identification but “this is about purging the voter rolls in a massive way, so you never even get the chance to show a voter ID when you showed up to vote.”

Expect a show on the Senate floor

Trump, backed by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, has pushed for a talking filibuster, which would force Democrats to talk for days or weeks to delay passage of the bill. But Thune and the larger GOP conference rejected that idea, arguing that it would end in failure after giving Democrats a stage and the opportunity to offer endless amendments, potentially adding their priorities to the bill.

Republicans are instead taking over the floor with their own speeches, proceeding under regular order but operating outside the normal time limits that are customary when debating legislation. Democrats are expected to answer with their own procedural hijinks, potentially forcing Republicans to come to the floor at all hours for votes, meaning they will need to stay close to the Senate for the duration.

Lee said last week that it’s unclear how it will all play out. He said he thinks Trump “understands that we need to put in an aggressive effort here.”

“And a lot of that,” he said, “is going to have to be determined in real time as we go about it.”

The extent of Trump’s satisfaction with the process, Lee said, “will depend on whether, in his view, we gave it everything we have.”

On Monday night, Lee was rallying voters in Trump’s base on X.

“Once we’re on this bill,” he wrote, “we must stay on it until it’s passed into law.”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate passed a broad bill on Thursday to make U.S. housing more accessible and affordable, a rare bipartisan effort in Congress to address a growing national problem.

The bill, which passed 89 to 10, would reduce regulations, regulate corporate investors and expand how housing dollars can be used to build affordable homes and rentals. It will now head back to the House, which passed a similar bill earlier this year.

“We have a housing shortage all across America,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who worked with Republicans to win overwhelming support from both parties for the legislation. “We need more housing of every kind. More housing for first-time home buyers, more housing for renters, more housing for seniors, more housing for people with disabilities, more rural housing, more urban housing, more, more, and more.”

The legislation, she said “will help drive down prices.”

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.), led the effort with Warren. He said ahead of the vote that the Senate could “do what so many people failed to do in this legislative body for the last few decades, and that is pass consequential legislation that makes it easier to become a homeowner.”

Roadblocks ahead for the legislation

Despite the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate, It’s unclear whether the House will pass the legislation again — or if President Trump will sign it.

Trump has strongly backed the bill through the bipartisan negotiations, but he has also slowed its momentum with a declaration last weekend that he won’t sign any new measures unless Congress passes legislation that would require voters to show proof of citizenship and end most mail-in balloting. The Senate is expected to begin consideration of that bill next week, but it is unlikely to pass as all Democrats oppose it.

At the same time, House leaders have indicated that they are unlikely to accept the Senate version of the housing legislation and have suggested they could launch a formal conference process to negotiate a final deal between the chambers — a process that could take months.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said ahead of the bill’s passage on Thursday that conference negotiations are a possibility, “but obviously the quickest way to do this would be to pick up the Senate bill and pass it.”

If the White House wants that to happen, he said, “they’ll probably have to make that argument to House leadership.”

Making housing more attainable

The bill would give local governments more power on housing issues, allow banks to invest more in affordable housing and lift limits on the number of units in a public housing development that can receive private financing through Section 8 funding that helps rehabilitate properties.

“You’ve got many provisions in this bill that stop treating the U.S. like one single housing market and start giving local leaders the tools they need to fix their unique regional puzzle,” said Peter Carroll with Cotality, a company that tracks housing data.

The bill aims to make homebuilding easier by streamlining some regulations that require environmental reviews and inspections. It also eliminates a limit on a grant for emergency shelter beds and street homelessness outreach.

As many affordable housing developers are leaning on manufactured and modular homes that can be transported to areas that need housing, the legislation also lifts the requirement that they have to be built on a permanent chassis, making them easier to build and design.

Housing advocacy and policy groups say they wish the bill went further by investing money in building more housing and assisting renters.

“This legislation is the product of essentially senators and House members wanting to come up with something that could pass with both Democratic and Republican votes, which means it’s inherently less ambitious,” said Yonah Freemark, a researcher at Urban Institute.

Corporate investors

One of the more contested provisions of the bill would bar institutional investors from buying single-family homes — a top priority for Trump.

The bill defines such investors as any that directly or indirectly own 350 or more single-family homes. Investors of any size would not be required to sell single-family homes bought before the date that the bill becomes a law.

They would still be allowed to buy or build single-family homes if they rent them out, but would be required to sell them to an individual homebuyer after seven years and offer that buyer “price concessions” and give tenants a 30-day “first-look” period when the time comes to sell the home.

A need for reform

The U.S. housing market has been in a slump dating back to 2022, when mortgage rates began to climb from pandemic-era lows.

Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes have been hovering close to a 4-million annual pace now going back to 2023 — well short of the 5.2-million annual pace that’s historically been the norm. They slowed last year to a 30-year low and have remained sluggish so far this year, declining in January and February versus a year earlier.

A sharp run-up in home prices, especially in the early years of this decade, and a chronic shortage of homes nationally worsened by years of below-average home construction have left many aspiring homeowners priced out of the market.

Meanwhile, while the median U.S. monthly rent has been declining for more than two years, it was still 15.2% higher in January than it was at the start of 2020, according to data from Realtor.com.

The trends have ratcheted pressure on lawmakers this year, with midterm elections looming in November, to show they’re working on ways to make homeownership and rental housing costs more affordable.

Kramon, Veiga and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. Kramon reported from Atlanta and Veiga reported from Los Angeles.