low-income family

Among the small army of prospects who’ve eyed the California governorship, none seemed more qualified than Toni Atkins.

After serving on the San Diego City Council, she moved on to Sacramento, where Atkins led both the Assembly and state Senate, one of just three people in history — and the first in 147 years — to head both houses of California’s Legislature.

She negotiated eight state budgets with two governors and, among other achievements, passed major legislation on abortion rights, help for low-income families and a $7.5-billion water bond.

You can disagree with her politics but, clearly, Atkins is someone who knows her way around the Capitol.

She married that expertise with the kind of hardscrabble, up-by-her-bootstraps backstory that a calculating political consultant might have spun from whole cloth, had it not been so.

Atkins grew up in rural Appalachia in a rented home with an outdoor privy. Her first pair of glasses was a gift from the local Lions Club. She didn’t visit a dentist until she was 24. Her family was too poor.

Yet for all of that, Atkins’ gubernatorial campaign didn’t last even to 2026, when voters will elect a successor to the termed-out Gavin Newsom. She quit the race in September, more than eight months before the primary.

She has no regrets.

“It was a hard decision,” the Democrat said. “But I’m a pragmatic person.”

She couldn’t and wouldn’t keep asking “supporters and people to contribute more and more if the outcome was not going to be what we hoped,” Atkins said. “I needed sort of a moonshot to do it, and I didn’t see that.”

She spoke recently via Zoom from the den of her home in San Diego, where Atkins had just returned after spending several weeks back in Virginia, tending to a dying friend and mentor, one of her former college professors.

“I was a first-generation college kid … a hillbilly,” Atkins said. She felt as though she had no place in the world “and this professor, Steve Fisher, basically helped turn me around and not be a victim. Learn to organize. Learn to work with people on common goals. … He was one of the first people that really helped me to understand how to be part of something bigger than myself.”

Over the 22 months of her campaign — between the launch in January 2024 and its abandonment on Sept. 29 — Atkins traveled California from tip to toe, holding countless meetings and talking to innumerable voters. “It’s one thing to be the speaker or the [Senate leader],” she said. “People treat you differently when you’re a candidate. You’re appealing to them to support you, and it’s a different conversation.”

What she heard was a lot of practicality.

People lamenting the exorbitant cost of housing, energy and child care. Rural Californians worried about their dwindling access to healthcare. Parents and teachers concerned about wanton immigration raids and their effect on kids. “It wasn’t presented as a political thing,” Atkins said. “It was just fear for [their] neighbors.”

She heard plenty from business owners and, especially, put-upon residents of red California, who griped about Sacramento and its seeming disconnection from their lives and livelihoods. “I heard in Tehama County … folks saying, ‘Look, we care about the environment, but we can’t have electric school buses here. We don’t have any infrastructure.’ ”

Voters seemed to be of two — somewhat contradictory — minds about what they want in their next governor.

First off, “Someone that’s going to be focused on California, California problems and California issues,” Atkins said. “They want a governor that’s not going to be performative, but really focused on the issues that California needs help on.”

At the same, they see the damage that President Trump and his punitive policies have done to the state in a very short time, so “they also want to see a fighter.”

The challenge, Atkins suggested, is “convincing people … you’re absolutely going to fight for California values and, at the same, that you’re going to be focused on fixing the roads.”

Maybe California needs to elect a contortionist.

Given her considerable know-how and compelling background, why did Atkins’ campaign fizzle?

Here’s a clue: The word starts with “m” and ends with “y” and speaks to something pernicious about our political system.

“I hoped my experience and my collaborative nature and my ability to work across party lines when I needed to … would gain traction,” Atkins said. “But I just didn’t have the name recognition.”

Or, more pertinently, the huge pile of cash needed to build that name recognition and get elected to statewide office in California.

While Atkins wasn’t a bad fundraiser, she simply couldn’t raise the many tens of millions of dollars needed to run a viable gubernatorial race.

That could be seen as a referendum of sorts. If enough people wanted Atkins to be governor, she theoretically would have collected more cash. But who doubts that money has an unholy influence on our elections?

(Other than Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who spent much of his career fighting campaign finance reform, and members of the Supreme Court who green-lit today’s unlimited geyser of campaign spending.)

At age 63, Atkins is not certain what comes next.

“I’ve lost parents, but it’s been decades,” she said. “And to lose Steve” — her beloved ex-college professor — “I think I’m going to take the rest of the year to reflect. I’m definitely going to stay engaged … but I’m going to focus on family” at least until January.

Atkins remains optimistic about her adopted home state, notwithstanding her unsuccessful run for governor and the earful of criticisms she heard along the way,

“California is the place where people dream,” she said. “We still have the ability to do big things … We’re the fourth-largest economy. We’re a nation-state. We need to remember that.”

Without losing sight of the basics.

Ever since a massive immigration raid on a Hyundai manufacturing site swept up nearly 500 workers in southeast Georgia this month, Rosie Harrison said her organization’s phones have been ringing nonstop with panicked families in need of help.

“We have individuals returning calls every day, but the list doesn’t end,” Harrison said. She runs a nonprofit called Grow Initiative that connects low-income families — immigrant and nonimmigrant alike — with food, housing and educational resources.

Since the raid, Harrison said, “families are experiencing a new level of crisis.”

A majority of the 475 people who were detained in the workplace raid — which U.S. officials have called the largest in two decades — were Korean and have returned to South Korea. But lawyers and social workers say many of the non-Korean immigrants ensnared in the crackdown remain in legal limbo or are otherwise unaccounted for.

As the raid began the morning of Sept. 4, workers almost immediately started calling Migrant Equity Southeast, a local nonprofit that connects immigrants with legal and financial resources. The small organization of approximately 15 employees fielded calls regarding people from Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Venezuela, spokesperson Vanessa Contreras said.

Throughout the day, people described federal agents taking cellphones from workers and putting them in long lines, Contreras said. Some workers hid for hours to avoid capture in air ducts or remote areas of the sprawling property. The Department of Justice said some hid in a nearby sewage pond.

People off-site called the organization frantically seeking the whereabouts of loved ones who worked at the plant and were suddenly unreachable.

Like many of the Koreans who were working there, advocates and lawyers representing the non-Korean workers caught up in the raid say that some who were detained had legal authorization to work in the United States.

Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor Immigration and Customs Enforcement responded to emailed requests for comment Friday. It is not clear how many people detained during the raid remain in custody.

Atlanta-based attorney Charles Kuck, who represents both Korean and non-Korean workers who were detained, said two of his clients were legally working under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, which was created under President Obama. One had been released and “should have never been arrested,” he said, while the other was still being held because he was recently charged with driving under the influence.

Another of Kuck’s clients was in the process of seeking asylum, he said, and had the same documents and job as her husband, who was not arrested.

Some even had valid Georgia driver’s licenses, which aren’t available to people in the country illegally, said Rosario Palacios, who has been assisting Migrant Equity Southeast. Some families who called the organization were left without access to transportation because the person who had been detained was the only one who could drive.

“It’s hard to say how they chose who they were going to release and who they were going to take into custody,” Palacios said, adding that some who were arrested didn’t have a so-called alien identification number and were still unaccounted for.

Kuck said the raid is an indication of how far reaching the Trump administration crackdown is, which officials claim is targeting only criminals.

“The redefinition of the word ‘criminal’ to include everybody who is not a citizen, and even some that are, is the problem here,” Kuck said.

Many of the families who called Harrison’s initiative said their detained relatives were the sole breadwinners in the household, leaving them desperate for basics like baby formula and food.

The financial impact of the raid at the construction site for a battery factory that will be operated by HL-GA Battery Co. was compounded by the fact that another large employer in the area — International Paper Co. — is closing at the end of the month, laying off 800 more workers, Harrison said.

Growth Initiative doesn’t check immigration status, Harrison said, but almost all families who have reached out to her have said that their detained loved ones had legal authorization to work in the United States, leaving many confused about why their relative was taken into custody.

“The worst phone calls are the ones where you have children crying, screaming, ‘Where is my mom?’” Harrison said.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press. R

A fight over taxes consumers pay for cannabis products has prompted a standoff between unusual adversaries: child-care advocates and the legal weed industry.

On July 1, California’s cannabis excise tax increased from 15% to 19% as part of a political deal struck in 2022 to help stabilize the fledgling legal market. But the industry now says the increase is untenable as it faces a sharp decline in revenue and unfair competition from the growing illicit market.

An industry-sponsored bill moving through the Legislature — and already passed by the Assembly — would eliminate the tax increase and lower the rate back to 15% for the next six years. This would reduce by $180 million annually the tax revenue that the state contributes toward law enforcement, child care, services for at-risk youth and environmental cleanup.

The losses include about $81 million annually that would have specifically funded additional subsidized child-care slots for about 8,000 children from low-income families.

“They are choosing the cannabis industry over children and youth,” said Mary Ignatius, executive director of Parent Voices California, which represents parents receiving state subsidies to help pay for child care.

Child care faces setbacks

The tension over taxes for legal weed versus child care — both industries in crisis — highlights the inherent pitfalls of funding important social services with “sin taxes,” whether it’s alcohol, weed or tobacco — funding that experts say is often unstable and unsustainable.

Engage with our community-funded journalism as we delve into child care, transitional kindergarten, health and other issues affecting children from birth through age 5.

The measure’s next stop is the Senate. All bills in the Legislature must be passed by Sept. 12, and the governor must sign them by Oct. 12.

“We can both support the legal cannabis industry and protect child care. If the measure reaches the governor’s desk and is signed into law, we will work with the Legislature to ensure there are no cuts to child care due to this policy change,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom.

But it’s unclear where money to backfill the losses would come from, as the state grapples with declining finances and federal funding cuts.

The money from cannabis taxes represents a fraction of California’s $7-billion annual child care budget. But as federal cuts to social services for low-income families, including Head Start, continue, any potential loss creates a sense of panic among child care advocates who say California ought to be shoring up revenue options right now — not reducing them.

“Every single dollar needs to remain in the programs that are serving our children and families. What may seem like a small amount to some is everything for advocates who are fighting for it,” said Ignatius.

The past decade has been a time of progress for child care advocates, as the state rebuilt a child care industry decimated by cuts during the Great Recession. California has more than doubled spending on child care since the recession low, added about 150,000 new subsidized child care slots, eliminated the fees paid by families, increased pay for child care workers and added a new public school grade level for 4-year-olds.

But despite these efforts to bolster the market, California’s child care industry still suffers from low pay for workers, unaffordable costs for families, and a shortage of spaces for infants and toddlers.

The waiting list for subsidized child care slots is still so long that some parents have taken to calling it the “no hope list,” said Ignatius. Those who join the list know they could wait years before a spot opens up, and by that time their child may already be in kindergarten or beyond.

Jim Keddy, who serves on an advisory committee to help determine what programs the tax will finance, opposes the proposed reduction.

“If you don’t work to promote and hold on to a funding stream for children, someone eventually takes it from you,” said Keddy, who is also executive director of Youth Forward, a youth advocacy organization.

The cannabis industry, however, argues that while the causes the tax supports may be worthwhile, market conditions are so abysmal that it cannot weather an increase.

Legal cannabis industry struggles to remain afloat

“It is sad that the cannabis industry is being pit against social programs, childhood programs and educational programs,” said Jerred Kiloh, president of United Cannabis Business Assn. and owner of the Higher Path dispensary in Sherman Oaks. “The reality is, if our legal industry keeps declining, then so does their tax revenue.”

In 2022, when the cannabis industry agreed to increase the excise tax, quarterly cannabis sales were at their peak. The agreement offered the new industry temporary relief by eliminating the cultivation tax passed by voters under Proposition 64, the 2016 initiative that legalized cannabis. In exchange, state regulators would be able to increase the excise tax after three years to make the change revenue neutral.

But since then, sales have plunged to their lowest levels in five years, due in part to the growing illicit market that is siphoning off sales from legal dispensaries.

In L.A., Kiloh said that between state and local taxes, his legal dispensary customers end up paying 47% in taxes on their purchase. But if they shopped instead at any of the thousands of stores in L.A. selling cannabis products without a license, they could avoid state and local cannabis taxes entirely.

“A 30% increase in an excise tax that is already egregious is just kind of the breaking point for a lot of consumers,” said Kiloh.

Even before the excise tax hike went into effect, just 40% of the cannabis consumed in California was obtained from the legal market, according to the California Department of Cannabis Control.

The measure to drop the excise tax, AB564, received widespread support from Assembly members, including stalwart supporters of early childhood education like Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), chair of the Legislative Women’s Caucus.

“Revenues from legal sales of cannabis are already dropping and if we keep raising the tax they’ll drop even more. That penalizes cannabis businesses who are doing the right thing and working within the legal market. And, it makes illegal sales from cartels and criminals more competitive,” she said in a statement. “We need to fund our kids’ education through the State General Fund, but if we want to supplement education and youth programs, cannabis tax dollars will only exist if we steady the legal market and go after those illegal operators.”

How reliable are sin taxes?

Lucy Dadayan, a researcher who studies sin taxes at the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C., said the California predicament reflects a larger problem with sin taxes.

If a sin tax is successful and consumption drops — as it has with tobacco — “the tax base shrinks. And in the case of cannabis, there’s the added wrinkle that a high tax rate can push consumers back into the illicit market, which also reduces revenue,” she said.

This is not the first time services for the state’s youngest children have been affected by reductions in a sin tax.

In 1998, California voters slapped cigarettes with a hefty surcharge to pressure smokers to give up their habit. The state used the money to fund “First 5” organizations in every county, which are dedicated to improving the health and well-being of young children and their families. But the less people smoked over time, the less money was available for early childhood programs, and the First 5 system now finds itself confronting an existential crisis as it faces a rapidly declining revenue source.

Meanwhile, the critical social services like child care that come to depend on sin taxes tend to get more and more expensive, creating a “mismatch” in the tax structure versus the need, said Dadayan.

“In the short term, these taxes can raise a lot of money and help build public support for legalization or regulation. But in the long term, they can leave important programs vulnerable because of shifting consumption patterns,” she said.

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.