Legislature

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A pair of court rulings declaring some of Florida’s gun restrictions unconstitutional are creating some confusion in the notoriously firearm-friendly state — and fueling activists’ calls for Republican legislators to take action to update state statutes so they abide by the new legal landscape.

Despite Florida’s history of being a gun-supporting climate, Florida’s GOP-dominated state Legislature took steps to restrict gun laws in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Since the day the measure was signed into law, gun rights advocates have been pushing to unravel it.

Now, activists say recent court rulings are fueling their push to expand gun rights in the state, emboldened by U.S. Supreme Court’s updated standards for evaluating gun laws based on the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“Leaving unconstitutional laws on the books creates nothing but confusion,” said Sean Caranna, executive director of the advocacy group Florida Carry.

Here’s what to know.

Judge finds age restriction on concealed carry unconstitutional

A ruling by a circuit court judge in Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, found that Florida’s prohibition against people under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed firearm is unconstitutional, at least as it relates to the case in question.

Last week, Judge Frank Ledee tossed out the conviction of 19-year-old Joel Walkes, who was charged with a third-degree felony for carrying a concealed handgun. Florida statutes currently allow people between the age of 18 and 20 to possess a firearm, if they legally receive it as a gift or an inheritance, but they are barred from purchasing guns or carrying them concealed.

Ledee found the state’s prohibition is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s historical test, and inconsistent with a recent appeals court ruling that found a state law banning the open carrying of firearms is unconstitutional. In his decision, the judge pointed to the Legislature’s role in codifying and clarifying the changes.

“Distilling these inconsistencies into a framework of firearm regulations compatible with the guarantee to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is best left to the wisdom of legislative debate,” Ledee wrote.

Open carry ruling sparks questions

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal issued its ruling last month in a case stemming from the July 4, 2022, arrest of a man who stood at a major intersection in downtown Pensacola carrying a visible, holstered pistol and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision legalizes open carry, though there are preexisting limitations against carrying in a threatening manner or in certain restricted spaces like government meetings, schools and bars. The ruling has prompted some Florida sheriffs to urge caution among gun owners and seek clarity from lawmakers.

Legalizing open carry has long been a major focus of gun rights activists in the state, who oppose the slate of restrictions that Florida lawmakers implemented in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, which killed 17 people and injured 17 others. Among the law’s provisions was raising the legal gun-buying age to 21.

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, said the recent court decisions put more onus on lawmakers to enact state statutes that line up with recent judicial rulings.

“I would not be surprised if in the next session the Florida Legislature doesn’t just take care of this by amending the statute to say, ‘clean it up.’ And then that’ll end all these lawsuits and possible lawsuits,” Jarvis said of the age-related prohibition. “And that’s really now what should happen.”

Advocates push for expanding gun laws

In the years since the 2018 Parkland shooting, lawmakers’ efforts to lower the gun-buying age to 18 have advanced in the Florida House but ultimately failed in the state Senate.

Now some advocates say the recent court rulings should force the hand of legislators who have opposed expanding gun rights in the past.

“We’ve been telling the Legislature since 2010 that this was going to be a problem for them if they didn’t act. And they chose not to act,” Caranna said.

“I hope that given some of the recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court and the Florida courts, that they will finally see that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,” he added.

Representatives for Florida’s House speaker and Senate president did not immediately respond to inquiries Wednesday.

Payne writes for the Associated Press.

OMAHA — No formal agreement has been signed to convert a remote state prison in Nebraska into the latest immigration detention center for President Trump’s sweeping crackdown, more than three weeks since the governor announced the plan and as lawmakers and nearby residents grow increasingly skeptical.

Corrections officials insist the facility could start housing hundreds of male detainees next month, with classrooms and other spaces at the McCook Work Ethic Camp retrofitted for beds. However, lawmakers briefed last week by state officials said they got few concrete answers about cost, staffing and oversight.

“There was more unanswered questions than answered questions in terms of what they know,” state Sen. Wendy DeBoer said.

Officials in the city of McCook were caught off guard in mid-August when Republican Gov. Jim Pillen announced that the minimum-security prison in rural southwest Nebraska would serve as a Midwest hub for immigration detainees. Pillen and federal officials dubbed it the “Cornhusker Clink,” in line with other alliterative detention center names such as “ Alligator Alcatraz ” in Florida and the “Speedway Slammer ” in Indiana.

“City leaders were given absolutely no choice in the matter,” said Mike O’Dell, publisher of the local newspaper, the McCook Gazette.

McCook is the seat of Red Willow County, where voters favored Trump in the 2024 election by nearly 80%. Most of them likely support the president’s immigration crackdown, O’Dell said. However, the city of around 7,000 has also grown accustomed to the camp’s low-level offenders working on roads, in parks, county and city offices and even local schools.

“People here have gotten to know them in many cases,” O’Dell said. “I think there is a feeling here that people want to know where these folks are going to end up and that they’ll be OK.”

The Work Ethic Camp first opened in 2001 and currently houses around 155 inmates who participate in education, treatment and work programs to help them transition to life outside prison. State leaders often praise it as a success story for reducing prisoner recidivism.

Some lawmakers have complained that Pillen acted rashly in offering up the facility, noting that the state’s prison system is already one of the nation’s most overcrowded and perpetually understaffed. The governor’s office and state prison officials met with members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee last week to answer questions about the transfer.

What the lawmakers got, several said, were estimates and speculation.

Lawmakers were told it was the governor’s office that approached federal officials with the offer after Trump “made a generalized, widespread call that we need more room or something for detainees,” said DeBoer, a Democrat in the officially nonpartisan Legislature.

Lawmakers were also told the facility — which was designed to house around 100 but is currently outfitted to hold twice that — would house between 200 and 300 detainees. The prison’s current staff of 97 is to be retrained and stay on.

The costs of the transition would be borne by the state, with the expectation that the federal government would reimburse that cost, DeBoer recalled.

A formal agreement between the state and federal agency had yet to be signed by Friday.

Asked how much the state is anticipated to spend on the conversion, the agency said “that number has not yet been determined,” but that any state expenditures would be reimbursed. The state plans to hire additional staffers for the center, the agency said.

A letter signed by 13 lawmakers called into question whether Pillen had the authority to unilaterally transfer use of a state prison to federal authorities without legislative approval.

To that end, state Sen. Terrell McKinney — chairman of the Legislature’s Urban Affairs Committee and a vocal critic of Nebraska’s overcrowded prison system — convened a public hearing Friday to seek answers from Pillen’s office and state corrections officials, citing concerns over building code violations that fall under the committee’s purview.

“How can you take a facility that was built for 125 people and take that to a capacity of 200 to 300 people without creating, you know, a security risk?” McKinney asked.

Pillen maintains state law gives him the authority to make the move, saying the Department of Correctional Services falls under the umbrella of the executive branch. He and state prison officials declined to show up at Friday’s hearing.

But dozens of Nebraska residents did attend, with most of them opposed the new ICE detention center.

Beck writes for the Associated Press.

Lawmakers in Missouri are the latest to try to draw a new U.S. House map for the 2026 election that could improve the Republican Party’s numbers in Congress.

It’s a trend that began in Texas, at the behest of President Trump, to try to keep GOP control of the House next year. California Democrats responded with their own map to help their party, though it still requires voter approval.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade, immediately after a census. But in some states, there is no prohibition on a mid-cycle map makeover. The U.S. Supreme Court also has said there is no federal prohibition on political gerrymandering, in which districts are intentionally drawn to one party’s advantage.

Nationally, Democrats need to gain three seats next year to take control of the House. The party of the president typically loses seats in the midterm congressional elections.

Here is a rundown of what states are doing.

Missouri lawmakers hold a special session

A special session called by Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe began Wednesday and will run at least a week.

Missouri is represented in the U.S House by six Republicans and two Democrats.

A revised map proposed by Kehoe would give Republicans a better chance at winning the seat held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by stretching the Kansas City-based district into rural Republican-leaning areas.

Although Democrats could filibuster in the Senate, Republicans could use procedural maneuvers to shut that down and pass the new map.

Texas Democrats walked out but Republicans prevailed

Democratic state House members left Texas for two weeks to scuttle a special session on redistricting by preventing a quorum needed to do business. But after that session ended, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott quickly called another one — and Democrats returned, satisfied that they had made their point and that California was proceeding with a counterplan.

Republicans hold 25 of the 38 congressional seats in Texas. A revised map passed Aug. 23 is intended to give Republicans a shot at picking up five additional seats in next year’s elections. Abbott’s signature made the map final.

California Democrats seek to counter Texas

Democrats already hold 43 of the 52 congressional seats in California. The Legislature passed a revised map passed Aug. 21 aimed at giving Democrats a chance to gain five additional seats in the 2026 elections.

Unlike Texas, California has an independent citizens’ commission that handles redistricting after the census, so any changes to the map need approval from voters. A referendum is scheduled for Nov. 4.

Indiana Republicans meet with Trump about redistricting

Indiana’s Republican legislative leaders met privately with Trump to discuss redistricting while in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 26. Some also met with Vice President JD Vance.

Several Indiana legislators came out in support of a mid-cycle map change following the meetings. But others have expressed hesitation. It remains unclear if Indiana lawmakers will hold a special session on redistricting.

Republicans hold a 7-2 edge over Democrats in Indiana’s congressional delegation.

Louisiana Republicans looking at times for a special session

Louisiana lawmakers are being told to keep their calendars open between Oct. 23 and Nov. 13. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Oct. 15 over a challenge to the state’s congressional map.

Republican state Rep. Gerald “Beau” Beaullieu, who chairs a House committee that oversees redistricting, said the idea is to have lawmakers available to come back to work in case the Supreme Court issues a ruling quickly.

Republicans now hold four of Louisiana’s six congressional seats.

Ohio must redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms

Because of the way its current districts were enacted, the state Constitution requires Republican-led Ohio to adopt new House maps before the 2026 elections. Ohio Democrats are bracing for Republicans to try to expand their 10-5 congressional majority.

Democrats don’t have much power to stop it. But “we will fight, we will organize, we will make noise at every step of the process,” Ohio Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Clyde said.

New York Democrats try to change state law

New York, similar to California, has an independent commission that redraws districts after every census.

State Democrats have introduced legislation to allow mid-decade redistricting, but the soonest new maps could be in place would be for the 2028 elections. That is because the proposal would require an amendment to the state Constitution, a change that would have to pass the Legislature twice and be approved by voters.

Maryland Democrats planning a response to Texas

Democratic state Sen. Clarence Lam has announced he is filing redistricting legislation for consideration during the 2026 session. Democratic House Majority Leader David Moon also said he would sponsor legislation triggering redistricting in Maryland if any state conducted mid-decade redistricting. Democrats control seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats.

Florida’s governor pledges support for redistricting

Florida Republican state House Speaker Daniel Perez said his chamber will take up redistricting through a special committee. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has reiterated his support for the state to join the redistricting fray, calling on the federal government to conduct a new census count and claiming that the Trump administration should “award” the state another congressional seat.

Twenty of Florida’s 28 U.S. House seats are occupied by Republicans.

Kansas Republicans haven’t ruled out redistricting

Republican state Senate President Ty Masterson didn’t rule out trying to redraw the state’s four congressional districts, one of which is held by the state’s sole Democratic representative. The Legislature’s GOP supermajority could do so early next year.

A court orders Utah to redraw its districts

Utah Republicans hold all four of the state’s U.S. House seats under a map the GOP-led Legislature approved after the 2020 census. But a judge ruled Aug. 25 that the map was unlawful because the Legislature had circumvented an independent redistricting commission that was established by voters to ensure districts don’t deliberately favor one party.

The judge gave lawmakers until Sept. 24 to adopt a map, which could increase Democrats’ chances of winning a seat.

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.”

AUSTIN, Texas — A Democratic Texas lawmaker opted to spend the night in the state House chamber and remain there Tuesday rather than allow a law enforcement officer to shadow her while Republicans try to prevent further delays to redrawing U.S. House maps.

Rep. Nicole Collier overnight stay stemmed from Republicans in the Texas House requiring returning Democrats to sign what the Democrats called “permission slips,” agreeing to around-the-clock surveillance by state Department of Public Safety officers to leave the floor. Collier, of Fort Worth, refused and remained on the House floor Monday night.

A message seeking comment was sent Tuesday to the Department of Public Safety.

The Democrats’ return to Texas puts the Republican-run Legislature in position to satisfy Trump’s demands, possibly later this week, as California Democrats advance new congressional boundaries in retaliation.

Lawmakers had officers posted outside their Capitol offices, and suburban Dallas Rep. Mihaela Plesa said one tailed her on her Monday evening drive back to her apartment in Austin after spending much of the day on a couch in her office. She said he went with her for a staff lunch and even down the hallway with her for restroom breaks.

“We were kind of laughing about it, to be honest, but this is really serious stuff,” Plesa said in a telephone interview. “This is a waste of taxpayer dollars and really performative theater.”

Collier, who represents a minority-majority district, said she would not “sign away my dignity” and allow Republicans to “control my movements and monitor me.”

“I know these maps will harm my constituents,” she said in a statement. “I won’t just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination.”

2 states at the center of an expanding fight

The tit-for-tat puts the nation’s two most populous states at the center of an expanding fight over control of Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The battle has rallied Democrats nationally following infighting and frustrations among the party’s voters since Republicans took total control of the federal government in January.

Dozens of Texas Democratic lawmakers left for Illinois and elsewhere on Aug. 3, denying their Republican colleagues the attendance necessary to vote on redrawn maps intended to send five more Texas Republicans to Washington. Republicans now hold 25 of Texas’ 38 U.S. House seats.

They declared victory Friday, pointing to California’s proposal intended to increase Democrats’ U.S. House advantage by five seats. Many absent Democrats left Chicago early Monday and landed hours later at a private airfield in Austin, where several boarded a charter bus to the Capitol. Cheering supporters greeted them inside.

Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows did not mention redistricting on the floor but promised swift action on the Legislature’s agenda.

“We aren’t playing around,” Republican state Rep. Matt Shaheen, whose district includes part of the Dallas area, said in a post on the X social media platform.

Democrats promise to keep fighting

Even as they declared victory, Democrats acknowledged Republicans can now approve redrawn districts. Texas House Minority Leader Gene Wu said Democrats would challenge the new designs in court.

Lawmakers did not take up any bills Monday and were not scheduled to return until Wednesday.

Trump has pressured other Republican-run states to consider redistricting, as well, while Democratic governors in multiple statehouses have indicated they would follow California’s lead in response. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said his state will hold a Nov. 4 special referendum on the redrawn districts.

The president wants to shore up Republicans’ narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of the midterms during his first presidency. After gaining House control in 2018, Democrats used their majority to stymie his agenda and twice impeach him.

Nationally, the partisan makeup of existing district lines puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. Of the 435 total House seats, only several dozen districts are competitive. So even slight changes in a few states could affect which party wins control.

Redistricting typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade after the census. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among those that empower independent commissions, giving Newsom an additional hurdle.

California Democrats start redrawing process

Democratic legislators introduced new California maps Monday. It was the first official move toward the fall referendum asking voters to override the independent commission’s work after the 2020 census. The proposed boundaries would replace current ones through 2030. Democrats said they will return the mapmaking power to the commission after that.

State Republicans promised lawsuits.

Democrats hold 43 out of California’s 52 U.S. House seats. The proposal would try to expand that advantage by targeting battleground districts in Northern California, San Diego and Orange counties, and the Central Valley. Some Democratic incumbents also get more left-leaning voters in their districts.

“We don’t want this fight, but with our democracy on the line, we cannot run away from this fight,” said Democrat Marc Berman, a California Assembly member who previously chaired the elections committee.

Republicans expressed opposition in terms that echoed Democrats in Austin, accusing the majority of abusing power. Sacramento Republicans said they will introduce legislation advocating independent redistricting commissions in all states.

Texas’ governor jumped to the president’s aid

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott launched the expanding battle when he heeded Trump’s wishes and added redistricting to an initial special session agenda that included multiple issues, including a package responding to devastating floods that killed more than 130 people last month.

Abbott has blamed Democrats’ absence for delaying action on those measures. Democrats have answered that Abbott is responsible because he effectively linked the hyper-partisan matter to nonpartisan flood relief.

Abbott, Burrows and other Republicans tried various threats and legal maneuvers to pressure Democrats’ return, including the governor arguing that Texas judges should remove absent lawmakers from office.

As long as they were out of state, lawmakers were beyond the reach of the civil arrest warrants that Burrows issued. The Democrats who returned Monday did so without being detained by law enforcement.

The lawmakers who left face fines of up to $500 for each legislative day they missed. Burrows has insisted Democratic lawmakers also will pay pick up the tab for law enforcement who attempted to corral them during the walkout.

Barrow, Nguyen, Figueroa and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. Nguyen reported from Sacramento. Hanna reported from Topeka, Kan.

For female state lawmakers in Kentucky, choosing when to go to the bathroom has long required careful calculation.

There are only two bathroom stalls for women on the third floor of the Kentucky Statehouse, where the House and Senate chambers are located. Female legislators — 41 of the 138-member Legislature — needing a reprieve during a lengthy floor session have to weigh the risk of missing an important debate or a critical vote.

None of their male colleagues face the same dilemma because, of course, multiple men’s bathrooms are available. The Legislature even installed speakers in the men’s bathrooms to broadcast the chamber’s events so they don’t miss anything important.

In a pinch, House Speaker David Osborne allows women to use his single-stall bathroom in the chamber, but even that attracts long lines.

“You get the message very quickly: This place was not really built for us,” said Rep. Lisa Willner, a Democrat from Louisville, reflecting on the photos of former lawmakers, predominantly male, that line her office.

The issue of potty parity may seem comic, but its impact runs deeper than uncomfortably full bladders, said Kathryn Anthony, professor emerita at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s School of Architecture.

“It’s absolutely critical because the built environment reflects our culture and reflects our population,” said Anthony, who has testified on the issue before Congress. “And if you have an environment that is designed for half the population but forgets about the other half, you have a group of disenfranchised people and disadvantaged people.”

There is hope for Kentucky’s lady legislators seeking more chamber potties.

A $300-million renovation of the 155-year-old Capitol — scheduled for completion by 2028 at the soonest — aims to create more women’s restrooms and end Kentucky’s bathroom disparity.

The Bluegrass State is among the last to add bathrooms to aging statehouses that were built when female legislators were not a consideration.

In the $392-million renovation of the Georgia Capitol, expanding bathroom access is a priority, said Gerald Pilgrim, chief of staff with the state’s Building Authority. It will introduce facilities for women on the building’s fourth floor, where the public galleries are located, and will add more bathrooms throughout to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“We know there are not enough bathrooms,” he said.

Evolving equality in statehouses

There’s no federal law requiring bathroom access for all genders in public buildings. Some 20 states have statutes prescribing how many washrooms buildings must have, but historical buildings — such as statehouses — are often exempt.

Over the years, as the makeup of state governments has changed, statehouses have added bathrooms for women.

When Tennessee’s Capitol opened in 1859, the architects designed only one restroom — for men only — situated on the ground floor. According to legislative librarian Eddie Weeks, the toilet could only be “flushed” when enough rainwater had been collected.

“The room was famously described as ‘a stench in the nostrils of decency,’” Weeks said in an email.

Today, Tennessee’s Capitol has a women’s bathroom located between the Senate and House chambers. It’s in a cramped hall under a staircase, sparking comparisons to Harry Potter’s cupboard bedroom, and it contains just two stalls. The men also just have one bathroom on the same floor, but it has three urinals and three stalls.

Democratic Rep. Aftyn Behn, who was elected in 2023, said she wasn’t aware of the disparity in facilities until contacted by the Associated Press.

“I’ve apparently accepted that waiting in line for a two-stall closet under the Senate balcony is just part of the job,” she said.

“I had to fight to get elected to a Legislature that ranks dead last for female representation, and now I get to squeeze into a space that feels like it was designed by someone who thought women didn’t exist — or at least didn’t have bladders,” Behn said.

The Maryland State House is the country’s oldest state capitol in continuous legislative use, operational since the late 1700s. Archivists say its bathroom facilities were initially intended for white men only because desegregation laws were still in place. Women’s restrooms were added after 1922, but they were insufficient for the rising number of women elected to office.

Delegate Pauline Menes complained about the issue so much that House Speaker Thomas Lowe appointed her chair of the “Ladies Rest Room Committee,” and presented her with a fur-covered toilet seat in front of her colleagues in 1972. She launched the women’s caucus the following year.

It wasn’t until 2019 that House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones, the first woman to secure that position, ordered the addition of more women’s restrooms along with a gender-neutral bathroom and a nursing room for mothers in the Lowe House Office Building.

‘No longer do we fret and squirm or cross our legs in panic’

As more women were elected nationwide in the 20th century, some found creative workarounds.

In Nebraska’s unicameral Legislature, female senators didn’t get a dedicated restroom until 1988, when a facility was added in the chamber’s cloakroom. There had previously been a single restroom in the Senate lounge, and Sen. Shirley Marsh, who served for some 16 years, would ask a State Patrol trooper to guard the door while she used it, said Brandon Metzler, the Legislature’s clerk.

In Colorado, female House representatives and staff were so happy to have a restroom added in the chamber’s hallway in 1987 that they hung a plaque to honor then-state Rep. Arie Taylor, the state’s first Black woman legislator, who pushed for the facility.

The plaque, now inside a women’s bathroom in the Capitol, reads: “Once here beneath the golden dome if nature made a call, we’d have to scramble from our seats and dash across the hall … Then Arie took the mike once more to push an urge organic, no longer do we fret and squirm or cross our legs in panic.”

The poem concludes: “In mem’ry of you, Arie (may you never be forgot), from this day forth we’ll call that room the Taylor Chamber Pot.”

New Mexico Democratic state Rep. Liz Thomson recalled missing votes in the House during her first year in office in 2013 because there was no women’s restroom in the chamber’s lounge. An increase in female lawmakers — New Mexico elected the largest female-majority Legislature in U.S. history in 2024 — helped raise awareness of the issue, she said.

“It seems kind of like fluff, but it really isn’t,” she said. “To me, it really talks about respect and inclusion.”

The issue is not exclusive to statehouses. In the U.S. Capitol, the first restroom for congresswomen didn’t open until 1962. While a facility was made available for female U.S. Senators in 1992, it wasn’t until 2011 that the House chamber opened a bathroom to female lawmakers.

Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first woman elected to a congressional seat. That happened in 1916.

Willner insists that knowing the Kentucky Capitol wasn’t designed for women gives her extra impetus to stand up and make herself heard.

“This building was not designed for me,” she said. “Well, guess what? I’m here.”

Kruesi and Rush write for the Associated Press. AP writer Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.

The potential redrawing of California’s congressional district lines could upend the balance of power in Washington, D.C., in next year’s midterm congressional election. The unusual and unexpected redistricting may take place in coming months because of sparring among President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Redrawing these maps — known as redistricting — is an esoteric practice that many voters tune out, but one that has an outsized impact on political power and policy in the United States.

Here is a breakdown about why a process that typically occurs once every decade is currently receiving so much attention — and the potential ramifications.

What is redistricting?

There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, each of whom is supposed to represent roughly the same number of constituents. Every decade, after the U.S. Census counts the population across the nation, the allocation of congressional representatives for each state can change. For example, after the 2020 census, California’s share of congressional districts was reduced by one for the first time in state history.

After the decennial census, states redraw district lines for congressional and legislative districts based on population shifts, protections for minority voters required by the federal Voting Rights Act and other factors. For much of the nation’s history, such maps were created by state legislators and moneyed interests in smoke-filled backrooms.

Many districts were grossly gerrymandered — contorted — to benefit political parties and incumbents, such as California’s infamous “Ribbon of Shame,” a congressional district that stretched in a reed-thin line 200 miles along the California coast from Oxnard to the Monterey County line.

But in recent decades, political-reform organizations and some elected officials, notably former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called for independent drawing of district lines. In 2010, the state’s voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure requiring California congressional maps to be drawn by a bipartisan commission, which it did in 2011 and 2021.

Why are we talking about this?

President Trump recently urged Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional districts to increase the number of GOP members of the House in next year’s midterm election. Congress is closely divided, and the party that does not control the White House traditionally loses seats in the body two years after the presidential election.

Trump has been able to enact his agenda — from deporting undocumented immigrants to extending tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy to closing some Planned Parenthood clinics — because the GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the House. But if Democrats flip Congress, Trump’s agenda will likely be stymied and he faces the prospect of being a lame duck during his last two years in office.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, shown with Democratic lawmakers from Texas, speaks during a news conference in Sacramento on Friday.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

What is Texas doing?

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state’s Legislature into special session last week to discuss the disastrous floods that killed more than 130 people as well as redistricting before the 2026 election.

Trump and his administration urged Abbott to redraw his state’s congressional lines with the hope of picking up five seats.

Abbott has said that his decision to include redistricting in the special session was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw “coalition districts” that are made up of multiple minority communities. New district lines would give Texans greater opportunity to vote for politicians who best represent them, the governor said in interviews.

Democrats in the Lone Star state’s Legislature met with Newsom in Sacramento on Friday to discuss the ramifications of mid-decade redistricting and accused Trump of trying to rig next year’s midterm election to hold onto power.

Republicans “play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away,” Newsom said of the nation’s history. “We are not going to allow that to happen.”

Democratic lawmakers in Texas have previously fled the state to not allow the Legislature to have a quorum, such as in 2021 during a battle over voting rights. But with the deadly flooding, this is an unlikely prospect this year.

Why is California in the mix?

The Golden State’s congressional districts are drawn by an independent commission focused on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets.

If the state reverts to partisan map drawing, redistricting experts on both sides of the aisle agree that several GOP incumbents in the 52-member delegation would be vulnerable, either because of more Democratic voters being placed in their districts, or being forced into face-offs with fellow Republican members of Congress. There are currently nine Republican members of the delegation, a number that could shrink to three or four, according to political statisticians.

Strange bedfellows

These dizzying developments have created agreement among rivals while dividing former allies.

Sara Sadhwani, a member of the 2021 redistricting commission and longtime supporter of independent map drawing, said she supports Democratic efforts to change California’s congressional districts before the midterm election.

“I stand by the work of the commission of course. We drew fair and competitive maps that fully abided by federal laws around the Voting Rights Act to ensure communities of color have an equal opportunity at the ballot box,” said Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. “That being said, especially when it comes to Congress, most certainly California playing fair puts Democrats at a disadvantage nationally.”

She said the best policy would be for all 50 states to embrace independent redistricting. But in the meantime, she supports Democratic efforts in California to temporarily redraw the districts given the stakes.

“I think it’s patriotic to fight against what appears to be our democracy falling into what appears to be authoritarian rule,” Sadhwani said.

Charles Munger Jr., the son of a late billionaire who was Warren Buffet’s right-hand man, spent more than $12 million to support the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission and is invested in making sure that it is not weakened.

“He’s very much committed to making sure the commission is preserved,” said someone close to Munger who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Munger believes “this is ultimately political quicksand and a redistricting war at the end of day is a loss to American voters.”

Munger, who was the state GOP’s biggest donor at one point, is actively involved in the California fight and is researching other efforts to fight gerrymandering nationwide, this person said.

The state Democratic and Republican parties, which rarely agree on anything, agreed in 2010 when they opposed the ballot measure. Now, Democrats, who would likely gain seats if the districts are redrawn by state lawmakers, support a mid-decade redistricting, while the state GOP, which would likely lose seats, says the state should continue having lines drawn by the independent commission once every decade.

“It’s a shame that Governor Newsom and the radical Left in Sacramento are willing to spend $200 million on a statewide special election, while running a deficit of $20 billion, in order to silence the opposition in our state,” the GOP congressional delegation said in a statement on Friday. “As a Delegation we will fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections.”

What happens next?

If Democrats in California move forward with their proposal, which is dependent on what Texas lawmakers do during their special legislative session that began last week, they have two options:

• State lawmakers could vote to put the measure before voters in a special election that would likely be held in November — a costly prospect. The last statewide special election — the unsuccessful effort to recall Newsom in 2021 — cost more than $200 million, according to the secretary of state’s office.
• The Legislature could also vote to redraw the maps, but this option would likely be more vulnerable to legal challenge.

Either scenario is expected to be voted on as an urgency item, which requires a 2/3 vote but would insulate the action from being the subject of a referendum later put in front of voters that would delay enactment.

The Legislature is out of session until mid-August.

Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Congressional redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and California and other states could follow suit.

President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year’s midterm elections, that could send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the House majority and blunt his agenda.

Texas has 38 seats in the House of Representatives. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner in March.

“There’s been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries — literally and figuratively — to reconfigure what the game is,” said Doug Spencer, the Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. chair in constitutional law at the University of Colorado.

Other states, including California, are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit.

The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking.

Here’s what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting:

When does redistricting normally happen?

Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count.

It’s a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat or two at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined.

States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district.

Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually on claims of violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance and resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own.

Is midcycle redistricting allowed?

By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional.

There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power.

“The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,” Spencer said. “And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, ‘Well, it doesn’t say we can’t do it more.’”

Some states have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment — approved by state voters — that requires an independent commission to lead the process.

Is Texas’ effort unprecedented?

Texas has done it before.

When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map.

Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. “I’m the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time.

Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five districts in the 2004 general election.

What do the courts say about gerrymandering?

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said redistricting is “highly partisan by any measure.”

But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Other states’ plans

Washington state Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats’ campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines.

“If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,” DelBene said. “We’re not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.”

In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play.

Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and “working through what that would look like.”

Askarinam writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers stood around Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday and celebrated the passage of the state budget and “transformative” housing legislation at the state Capitol.

Between mutual praise and handshakes in front of television news cameras, there was little acknowledgment of the power dynamics that played out behind the scenes: Democratic lawmakers once again gave in to the demands of the soon-to-be termed-out governor.

“We’ve seen multiple situations now where it’s clear that the Legislature is in one place and the governor is in another, whether that’s bills that have passed overwhelmingly and been vetoed, or it’s dragging the Legislature along on budget bills,” said Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation. “At some point the Legislature needs to legislate.”

Newsom took a rare step earlier this year and publicly supported two bills to lessen environmental review standards to speed up the construction of housing in California. Despite vowing to supercharge homebuilding, Newsom previously backed only smaller-scale policies and construction has stagnated.

In his recently published book “Abundance,” journalist Ezra Klein argued that California’s marquee environmental law stands in the way of housing construction — a critique that struck a chord with the governor. Newsom, who is considering a 2028 presidential run, this year was hellbent on proving that he’s the kind of Democrat who can be part of the solution and push through the government and political logjams.

When a pivotal bill designed to streamline housing construction recently stalled in the state Senate, Newsom effectively forced it through despite the concerns of progressive lawmakers, environmental interest groups and labor unions. The governor did so by ensuring that a state budget bill included a “poison pill” provision that required lawmakers to pass the housing legislation in order for the spending plan to go into effect on July 1.

Newsom called the bills the “most consequential housing reform that we’ve seen in modern history in the state of California” on Monday evening.

“This was too important to play chance,” Newsom said, adding that he worried reforms would have fallen prey to the same opposition as prior years if he allowed the “process to unfold in the traditional way.”

Democratic lawmakers for years have tried to cut through the thicket of regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, and faced stiff opposition from powerful labor groups. These groups, notably the State Building and Construction Trades Council, have argued that any relief offered to developers should be paired with wage and other benefits for workers.

The legislation Newsom signed Monday sidestepped those demands from labor.

Assembly Bill 130, based on legislation introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), exempts most urban housing projects from CEQA, requiring only developers of high-rise — taller than 85 feet — and low-income buildings to pay union-level wages for construction workers.

Senate Bill 131 also narrows CEQA mandates for housing construction and further waives the environmental restrictions for some residential rezoning changes. The bill, led by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), additionally designates a host of nonresidential projects — health clinics, child-care and advanced manufacturing facilities, food banks and more — no longer subject to CEQA.

Experts in development said the new legislation could provide the most significant reforms to CEQA in its 55-year history, especially for urban housing.

CEQA generally requires proponents to disclose and, if possible, lessen the environmental effects of a construction project. The process sounds simple but often results in thousands of pages of environmental assessments and years of litigation.

CEQA creates substantial legal risk for homebuilders and developers, and past efforts to alleviate its burdens fell short, said Dave Rand, a prominent Southern California land-use attorney. The bills signed Monday provide relief for the vast majority of housing, he said. High-rise and affordable housing construction often already require union-level pay.

“The worst cog in the wheel has always been CEQA,” Rand said. “It’s always been the place where projects get stuck. This is the first clean, across-the-board, objective, straightforward exemption that anyone can figure out.”

He said clients are eager to take advantage of the new rules, which take effect immediately.

“There’s over 10 projects we’re going to push the go button on with this exemption probably Tuesday,” Rand said.

For non-housing projects, the changes do not amount to a comprehensive overhaul but are still meaningful, said Bill Fulton, publisher of the California Planning & Development Report.

In the past, state lawmakers have passed narrow, one-off CEQA waivers for projects they supported, such as increased enrollment at UC Berkeley in 2022. SB 131 continues the Legislature’s penchant for exempting specific kinds of development from CEQA rules, he said, though the nine categories of projects affected provide more expansive relief than prior efforts.

“They’re cherry picking things that they want to speed through,” said Fulton, who has termed the phenomenon “Swiss cheese CEQA.”

Observers said Newsom’s actions were the strongest he has taken to force large-scale housing policies through the Legislature.

For years, the governor has made audacious promises — on the campaign trail in 2017, Newsom famously promised to support the construction of 3.5 million new homes by the end of this year, a goal likely to fall millions short. But he has been more likely to work behind the scenes or swoop in and praise bills once they’ve passed rather than publicly shape housing policy, said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor.

Elmendorf, who supports the new laws, called Newsom’s arm-twisting and willingness to challenge entrenched interests, “an incredible about-face from his MO with respect to the legislative process on controversial housing and environmental issues for the last six, seven years.”

The governor has jammed his policy priorities on other topics through the Legislature before, including climate legislation, infrastructure and oil regulations, with mixed results over the years.

Newsom’s term ends in early 2027. His endorsement of the meaningful housing policies, and his strategy to propel one through the state Senate, became a bellwether of his strength at the Capitol as his time in office wanes.

Wicks said Newsom “put a ton of skin in the game” to force the proposals through.

“He went all in on pushing for taking on these sacred cows like CEQA because I think he recognizes that we have to tackle this problem,” Wicks said.

Wicks’ legislation had cleared the Assembly before the proposal became part of the state budget process, which added pressure on lawmakers to pass the bills. She described herself as “cautiously optimistic” as it moved through the Capitol and said her house understood the need for reform.

Wiener’s legislation was slower to gain traction. Just last week, the inability of the Senate and the governor’s office to reach an agreement on the proposal held up the announcement of a budget deal.

Then Newsom tied the proposal to the budget, essentially requiring lawmakers to pass the bill or risk starting the fiscal year on July 1 without a spending plan.

During the debate on SB 131, Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas) said the legislation had “significant issues” but that he would vote in favor of the measure because of assurances that those would eventually be addressed.

“I think nature and abundance can live side by side. In fact, they must,” Stern said. “We don’t want to live in a moonscape California. Want to live in a livable one.”

Despite the concerns, lawmakers passed both bills on Monday.

Gonzalez was critical of legislators, saying “nobody is voting their values.” She compared the Legislature going along with Newsom’s plan to Republicans in Congress.

“California Democrats are crying foul that legislators and senators are passing things that they don’t even know the effect of that aren’t in line with their constituents that are just being shoved down their throats by Donald Trump,” Gonzalez said. “And those same legislators in California are allowing that to happen to themselves.”

California leaders reached a tentative agreement Tuesday night on the state budget, which hinges on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s demand that the Legislature pass a housing reform proposal.

The eleventh-hour negotiations about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1, speak to the political challenge of overhauling longstanding environmental regulations to speed up housing construction in a state controlled by Democrats.

The party has been loath to do more than tweak the California Environmental Quality Act, or approve one-off exemptions, despite pressure from the governor and national criticism of a law that reform advocates say has hamstrung California’s ability to build.

The proposal is among a series of policies Newsom and Democratic lawmakers are expected to advance in the coming days as part of the $321.1-billion budget. The deal reflects the Legislature’s resistance to the governor’s proposed cuts to reduce a $12-billion budget deficit expected in the year ahead, citing uncertainty about the scope of the state’s financial problems.

“We appreciate the strong partnership with the Legislature in reaching this budget agreement,” said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom. “The governor’s signature is contingent on finalizing legislation to cut red tape and unleash housing and infrastructure development across the state — to build more, faster.”

The consensus comes after weeks of conversations about how to offset the deficit, caused by overspending in California, and start to address even larger financial problems anticipated in the future, including from potential federal policy changes.

The tentative deal largely relies on borrowing money, tapping into state reserves, and shifting funding around to close the shortfall. By reducing and delaying many of the governor’s proposed cuts, the budget continues a practice at the state Capitol of sparing state programs from immediate pain while avoiding taking on California’s long-term budget woes.

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) said the budget deal papers over the state’s financial problems.

“We’re in this situation because of overspending,” Gallagher said. “We’ve made long-term commitments to programs that Democrats have championed, and now, just like everybody warned, the money is not there to support them all, and they don’t want to cut back their program that they helped expand.”

The cuts lawmakers and the governor ultimately agreed to will reduce the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to undocumented immigrants and reinstate asset limit tests for Medi-Cal enrollees. The final deal, however, achieves less savings for the state than Newsom originally proposed.

The plan restores cost-of-living adjustments for child-care workers, which the governor wanted to nix, and rejects his call to cap overtime hours for in-home caregivers.

Democrats in the Legislature successfully pushed to provide another $500 million in funding for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants. The governor originally resisted giving more money to counties, which he has chastised for being unable to show results for the billions of dollars in state funding they have received to reduce homelessness.

Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) pushed back on the notion that the Legislature hasn’t done “real belt-tightening.” Lawmakers are trying to balance compassion and fiscal responsibility before making drastic cuts to safety net programs that Californians rely on, he said.

“That is the balance that we are trying to strike here with this budget of being responsible, of focusing on the work that we need to do regardless, but also understanding that there is a pretty high delta of uncertainty for a lot of reasons,” Gabriel said.

The budget also preserves Newsom’s plan to provide $750 million to expand the California Film and Television Tax Credit, a proposal supported by Hollywood film studios and unions representing workers in the industry.

The tentative agreement is expected to serve as a precursor to more challenging financial discussions about additional reductions in the months ahead.

California expects to lose federal funding from the Trump administration and state officials predict a potentially greater funding dilemma in 2026-27.

Here are few key elements of the budget deal, detailed in summaries of the agreement and legislation:

A housing caveat

Described colloquially as a “poison pill” inserted into the budget bill, the agreement between the Legislature and Newsom will only become law if legislators send the governor a version of a proposal initially introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

Wiener’s bill is expected to lessen the number of building projects that would require a full environmental review under CEQA and make the process of developing environmental impact reports more efficient.

Paired with another proposal that could exempt more urban housing developments from CEQA, the legislation could mark a significant change in state policy that makes it easier to build.

Newsom is effectively forcing the Wiener proposal through by refusing to sign a budget deal without the CEQA exemptions. The proposal was still being drafted as of Tuesday evening.

The governor declared lofty goals to build more housing on the 2018 gubernatorial campaign trail, but he has failed to spur enough construction to meet housing demand and make homes more affordable.

New York Times columnist Ezra Klein effectively called out the inaction in California caused by the state’s marquee environmental law and a lack of political will in his recent book “Abundance,” which increased pressure on the governor and other Democrats to reconsider their approach and push for more substantial fixes this year.

The CEQA reform bill must be passed by Monday under the budget agreement, which omits a separate Newsom call to streamline the Delta tunnels project.

Changes to Med-Cal funding

Medi-Cal cost overruns are causing major problems for the California budget. The challenges stem from a higher-than-expected price tag for the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to all income-eligible undocumented immigrants and medical care for other enrollees.

Newsom’s budget proposal in May suggested substantial trims to the healthcare program for people who are undocumented. His plan included freezing new enrollment as of Jan. 1, requiring all adults to pay $100 monthly premiums, eliminating long-term care benefits and cutting full dental coverage. The changes offered minor savings in the year ahead but could save billions of dollars in future years.

Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. They plan to adopt Newsom’s enrollment cap but give people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility.

Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026.

State leaders agreed to reinstate much higher limits than the governor originally proposed on the assets Medi-Cal beneficiaries may possess and still get coverage. The new limits would be $130,000 for individuals and $195,00 for couples, compared to prior limits of a few thousand dollars.

They also adopted Newsom’s proposal to withdraw Medi-Cal benefits for specialty weight-loss drugs.

Shifting money around

The negotiations resulted in less general fund spending than the Legislature proposed in a counter to Newsom’s budget revision in May, dropping from $232 billion to an estimated $228 billion for 2025-26.

Officials are using more money from California’s cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on companies’ greenhouse gas emissions and allows them to buy pollution credits from the state, including $1 billion next year. They are also using $300 million from climate change bonds instead of the general fund to pay for environmental programs.

Lawmakers and the governor agreed to delay a $3.4-billion payment on a loan to cover Medi-Cal cost overruns and increase the loan by another $1 billion next year.

Trump uncertainty

The plan continues an agreement to take $7.1 billion from the state’s rainy day fund to help cover the deficit and taps into another $6.5 billion from other cash reserves to balance the budget.

California leaders for months have warned about the so-called Trump effect on the state budget.

Financial analysts at UCLA predict that the state economy is expected to slow in the months ahead due to the effects of Trump’s tariff policy and immigration raids on construction, hospitality, agriculture and other key sectors.

Meanwhile, the state is warning that federal funding reductions to California could require lawmakers to adopt additional budget cuts in August or September, during a special session in the fall or early next year.

State officials expect future deficit estimates to range from $17 to $24 billion annually, according to an Assembly summary of the budget deal.

More to come

The final budget agreement is being publicly released in bits and pieces this week through a series of trailer bills that appear online at random hours.

Lawmakers are expected to pass a main budget bill on Friday and approve additional legislation by Monday, before the July 1 deadline for the budget to go into effect. Some legislation, such as the CEQA housing exemptions, will not appear in print until the end of the week.

Other decisions, such as reauthorizing California’s cap-and-trade program, will be considered later in the year outside of the budget process.