measure

A $30 minimum wage for hotel and airport workers will be delayed after Los Angeles elected officials persuaded a group of business leaders to drop a ballot measure that would have devastated the city budget.

On Tuesday, the City Council approved the 18-month delay, which will postpone the wage increase until after the 2028 Olympics and fend off the business-backed initiative to eliminate the gross receipts tax, which is the city’s second-largest revenue stream.

The minimum wage will still increase to $25 in July and continue in increments until reaching $30 in January 2030.

Because the 11 to 4 vote was not unanimous, the new pay schedule will head to a second vote next week. Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Ysabel Jurado, Nithya Raman and Hugo Soto-Martínez cast the “no” votes.

In May 2025, the council approved a proposal that would have increased the minimum wage to $30 in July 2028 and also raised an hourly payment for healthcare coverage.

In response, a coalition of airline and hotel businesses gathered enough signatures to place a measure on the Nov. 3 ballot that took aim at the city’s gross receipts tax, which is imposed on a vast array of businesses, including entertainment companies, child-care providers, law firms, accountants, healthcare businesses, nightclubs and many others.

If approved by voters, the measure would have stripped $740 million from the city’s general fund over the first year, according to city officials, and over five years would have amounted to a $860 million loss annually on average.

City officials, hotel and airport businesses and labor unions had been in continuous negotiations since last Wednesday, when the council narrowly approved an initial postponement of the wage increase to allow time to reach an agreement. The business coalition agreed to withdraw the measure if the council permanently approved the delay.

In addition to delaying the $30 minimum wage, the council on Tuesday pushed back the hourly healthcare payment to start at $8.15 an hour for airport workers in July 2027 and $4.25 for hotel workers July 1 of this year.

The council also voted to set up a committee to study possible changes to the business tax structure.

“Imposing wages and benefits without bringing business to the table is not reasonable,” said Nella McOsker, president and CEO of the downtown business group Central City Assn., at the council meeting. “It is reasonable to ask us to partner together to be on the other side of the table and negotiate, but it is not OK to do so without that process.”

Kurt Petersen, president of Unite Here Local 11, which represents the hotel workers, accused city officials of giving “into blackmail.”

“They now have a playbook. The next time workers win something, they’ll threaten to blow up the city,” Petersen said of the business coalition. “It’s a bad day for workers.”

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson described the process as painful but nearing a conclusion.

“I think we walked away from the negotiating table, like many negotiating tables, where no one was happy about the outcome, but everybody came away better than when we started off,” he said.

Shortly before the council vote, Mayor Karen Bass issued a statement that said she was called in by both business and labor leaders to close the deal.

She called the proposed repeal of the gross receipts tax “an existential threat to the city budget and the services it supports,” including street repairs, public safety and efforts to clean the city.

“This agreement ensures workers are paid fairly and that businesses that create jobs can continue serving LA and hiring Angelenos,” Bass said.

On Tuesday, the council chamber was filled with union workers in red, purple and yellow shirts.

Laura Esquivel, a janitor at Los Angeles International Airport, expressed frustration that council members were not standing by their earlier commitment.

“We’re sick and tired of being exploited. Some members of the council that are here, now we know, do not stand with workers,” Esquivel said. “We are not giving up, we will continue to fight and we’ll be back here in 2028.”

Before voting against the delay, Soto-Martínez, a former Unite Here organizer, called it sad and enraging.

“I cannot support anything that is going to take away money from workers,” he said.

Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who spoke in Spanish, was critical of the way the negotiations unfolded.

“If this thing about the gross tax receipts passes, we don’t have a city,” Padilla said. “The business community has us by our necks.”

She said workers deserve the wage increase, though she voted for the delay.

“Next time, let’s negotiate, and let’s negotiate well,” she said.

Times staff writer Suhauna Hussain contributed to this report.

It’s been years since Los Angeles County voters met a sales tax they didn’t like.

They agreed to pay half a cent more at the cash register to fund buses, trains and pothole fillings in 2016. The next year, they gave a quarter-cent more to fund homeless services. In 2024, voters bumped it up to a half–cent.

But with the electorate in a dour mood and reeling from rocketing gas prices, some speculate voters’ willingness to tax themselves may be dwindling as ballots arrive for the June 2 primary election.

“This is going to be a tougher year for taxes than prior years,” said former supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who pushed through a property tax ballot measure in 2002 to fund the county’s trauma care network. “There’s a limit to the tolerance people have for increasing their own taxes.”

Los Angeles County voters will soon decide whether they want to pay a temporary half-cent sales tax to shore up the region’s public healthcare system, which is facing dramatic federal funding cuts. Officials estimate the county will lose more than $2 billion in healthcare funding over the next three years.

The county currently has a base sales tax rate of 9.75%, and cities impose additional local taxes on top of that. If approved, the tax would take effect Oct. 1 and last for five years. The exact tax rate would vary depending on the city.

Voters haven’t said no to a sales tax hike since 2012, when a transportation measure fell just short with 66.1% support. It needed 66.7% to pass.

The healthcare sales tax has a lower bar to clear. The supervisors voted to put the measure on the ballot as a general tax, which gives them more leeway with how the money is spent and only requires a simple majority to pass.

But even that threshold may prove difficult. Polling from March suggested the measure was losing among L.A. city voters, who are often more generous than county voters at large. Angelenos will also find their ballot crowded with other tax hike proposals, which may leave some voters feeling picky.

“People have a very discerning instinct,” said Yaroslavsky. “They will pick and choose what they think is important.”

Despite no organized opposition, a flurry of cities, as well as the editorial board of the Los Angeles Daily News, have loudly spurned the idea, arguing it will make the region even less affordable.

“It’s just terrible timing,” said Paul Little, the head of the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce. “Costs are going through the roof for everything.”

With weeks to go until election day, healthcare workers and advocates supporting the measure have gone full steam ahead with mailers, marches and a social media campaign depicting a wallowing penny finding its lost sense of purpose with the measure. The campaign’s top funders are St. John’s Community Health and SEIU, who frame the measure as life or death for thousands of uninsured residents.

“Think about that person you know in your family who is asthmatic and relies on that inhaler, who has rheumatoid arthritis, who is diabetic,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell at a recent town hall held in support of the measure. “And think about whether or not you’re willing to spend a half a penny — 50 cents on every hundred dollars — to make sure that that family, friend or neighbor gets what they need to be healthy.”

The supervisors voted 4-1 to put the sales tax on the ballot. Supervisor Kathryn Barger was the lone no vote.

Supporters say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump last July, is an existential threat to the public health system, leaving the county without reimbursement for the medical care of many Californians who are losing Medi-Cal coverage. The looming multibillion-dollar hole in the budget raises the prospect of hospital cutbacks, staff layoffs and possible emergency room closures, they say.

¿Qué en la fregada?

What the hell?

That’s what I muttered after learning that Los Angeles Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez wants to allow noncitizens to vote in city and school board elections.

Talk about a solution in search of a problem, considering everything Angelenos are facing right now.

While the specter of la migra continues to haunt the city, far more crushing are problems that affect everyone — affordability, housing, traffic, pollution. Maybe Soto-Martínez and his colleagues should double down on fixing those things first and sell their message better to voters instead of picking up a new issue?

I know the first-term council member comes from a good place. His parents were formerly undocumented, just like my dad, and he has been a fierce advocate for immigrants going back to his labor organizing days. I have friends without legal status and others in the DACA program for people who came to the U.S. illegally as children. I think giving them, as well as green card holders and others with papers, a chance to participate in elections is a righteous idea.

But to paraphrase the Book of Ecclesiastes, there’s a time and a place for everything. In 2026, Angelenos should be focused on electing people and approving initiatives that will improve the city for everyone, not a narrow plank benefiting a slice of the population.

So I called up Soto-Martínez and challenged him to convince this doubting Tomás.

He hopes his proposal will reach the City Council later this month for a vote on whether to place it on the November ballot. If voters pass the measure, it goes back to the council to decide when — if ever — to enfranchise the immigrants.

The proposal, already vilified in conservative media, isn’t as radical as it seems. Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal elections, but there’s a well-established history of their participation in local ones, including in Vermont and Maryland. They can already vote in L.A. neighborhood council elections, and in San Francisco school board elections if they have a child in the district.

Besides, L.A. has long led the way in weaving undocumented immigrants into the fabric of civic life.

This is a sanctuary city where Mayor Karen Bass has stood up to President Trump’s xenophobia. Where eight of the 15 council members are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Where LAUSD Supt. Alberto Carvalho — himself formerly undocumented — has striven to make local schools as welcoming as possible (Carvalho is on paid leave after the FBI raided his home and office earlier this year). Even the LAPD learned decades ago that it’s better to embrace undocumented immigrants than castigate them for their lack of legal status.

“If you’re contributing to this economy, you should have the right to decide who represents you,” Soto-Martínez told me.

Fair point. But isn’t thumbing our noses at Trump asking for more of what he has already inflicted on L.A., making life even more miserable for undocumented immigrants? Could he use the noncitizen voter rolls as a list of whom to deport? Besides, doesn’t extending the franchise to noncitizens give fuel to his crazy conspiracies about stolen elections?

“You always hear, ‘Don’t poke the bear, don’t instigate them,’ but that’s not how you deal with a bully,” Soto-Martínez replied. “They’re coming at us already. While they’re removing people’s right to vote in the Supreme Court, we’re expanding it. … And it has nothing to do with Trump. It’s about fairness.”

Tell that to Trump.

I mentioned that Santa Ana — a city far more Latino than Los Angeles, though not as liberal — decisively rejected a similar measure in 2024. Soto-Martínez’s fellow Democratic Socialist council members, Ysabel Jurado and Eunisses Hernández, have voiced their support for his measure. But I wonder whether the full council will move it along to voters in a year when some members, including Soto-Martínez, are running for reelection.

I couldn’t get a comment from Bass. Councilmember Nithya Raman, who’s running against her, said in a statement that Soto-Martínez’s push “is worth taking seriously” but that it’s “critical to getting this right, and we must not make decisions lightly or quickly.”

“We’re going to have to organize,” Soto-Martínez acknowledged. “But we live in a political moment where it’s the right conversation to have about what this city stands for.”

Avance Democratic Club President Nilza Serrano at Mariachi Plaza in Boyle Heights in 2022.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

He’s going to have to convince people like Nilza Serrano. She’s president of Avance, L.A. County’s largest Latino Democratic club, and heads the California Democratic Party’s Latino caucus. Serrano is no wokosa — she supported Rick Caruso in the last mayoral election and is now siding with Bass.

While Serrano thinks Soto-Martínez is on to something, she said that voting rights for noncitizens are a nonissue for the people she’s trying to get to the polls for the June primary and November general elections. The economy and Trump’s deportation deluge are more on their minds.

I asked if Soto-Martínez’s proposal would cheapen citizenship for people like her. Serrano and her family came here legally from Guatemala in the 1980s before becoming U.S. citizens, a process that took years.

“Not for me,” she replied. “But it’s hard to say for others. I’d have to do a little bit more research.”

So I continued with my own research, calling someone I was sure would have a fit about the idea: Los Angeles County Hispanic Republican Club President David Hernandez.

“Isn’t San Francisco already doing it?” the Navy veteran cracked.

I thought Hernandez would go on an anti-liberal rant, but.…

“I believe there’s a strong argument,” he said, “that if someone has established residency and is a member of the community and suffered the consequences of whatever local policies will be enacted, they should have a say in who gets elected.”

Did the ghost of Joaquin Murrieta, California’s original avenging Latino, suddenly possess Hernandez? To make sure I was hearing right, I asked again if noncitizens voting in L.A. elections is a good thing.

How could he support that, as a Trump-voting Republican?!

“We have to be pragmatic,” he replied. He approves of noncitizens voting in L.A. neighborhood council elections, because that’s true local control.

He understands that allowing them to vote in municipal elections might come off as an insult to the memory of civil rights activists who lost their lives fighting for that right for Black Americans. But U.S. citizens are already taking it for granted, he noted — turnout in the November 2022 L.A. mayoral election was a pitiful 44%.

“Maybe noncitizens will appreciate voting more than citizens,” he said.

I’m still not fully convinced that Soto-Martínez’s push is wise right now, but I like that he’s being careful.

“We need to get in the weeds of this,” he said of the City Council’s deliberations, which he characterized as attempting to ensure maximum benefit and minimum fallout.

Let’s see what they come up with in a few weeks.

WASHINGTON — White House economists estimate that President Trump’s deals with pharmaceutical companies to drop some of their U.S. prescription drug prices to what they charge in other countries could save $529 billion over the next 10 years.

The analysis obtained by the Associated Press includes the first economy-wide projections behind a policy at the core of Trump’s pitch to voters going into November’s midterm elections for control of the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers have been doubtful about the savings claimed by Trump and these new numbers are likely to trigger additional questions about the data.

Cost-of-living issues are at the forefront of voters’ concerns and higher energy prices tied to the Iran war have deepened the public’s anxiety. Trump has tried in part to address affordability concerns by focusing on his efforts to cut deals with companies so that the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. would no longer be dramatically higher than in other affluent nations.

“Now you have the lowest drug prices anywhere in the world,” Trump said at a Friday rally before a crowd of seniors in Florida. “And that alone should win us the midterms.”

The analysis was done by administration officials for the White House Council of Economic Advisers. They also estimated that federal and state governments could save a combined $64.3 billion on Medicaid during the next decade because of what Trump calls his “most favored nation” policy on drug prices.

Few of the details of the deals struck by the Trump administration and 17 leading pharmaceutical companies have been made public, making it hard to independently verify the projected savings. The White House analysis sought to estimate the prospective savings as more medications come onto the market and fall under Trump’s framework — with one model in the report tallying the possible savings at $733 billion over a decade.

Trump and his Department of Health and Human Services have touted his drug-pricing deals as transformative and urged Congress to codify their principles into law. Democratic lawmakers have challenged the administration’s claims of savings. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and 17 Senate Democrats in April proposed a measure requiring the administration to disclose the terms of the agreements signed by pharmaceutical companies.

“If these deals are so great, why is the Trump administration afraid of showing them to the public?” Wyden said when announcing the measure. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his team would share details that didn’t include proprietary information or trade secrets.

The White House said it has not shared the text of the agreements because they include highly sensitive data that could move financial markets.

The potential savings estimated by the Trump administration would be substantial as Americans spent $467 billion on prescription drugs in 2024, according to the most recent government data available. The analysis is premised on the idea that foreign countries would also pay more for their prescription drugs, which would diversify drugmakers’ sources of revenue and preserve their ability to innovate with new treatments.

Outside economists have caveated that any savings might not flow directly to patients, many of whom already pay discounted prices for their drugs through their insurance coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office in October 2024 estimated that a plan similar to what Trump ended up adopting could reduce prescription drug prices by more than 5%, though the decrease “would probably diminish over time as manufacturers adjusted to the new policy by altering prices or distribution of drugs in other countries.”

The scope of the savings claimed by the Trump administration are likely to intensify the scrutiny by Democrats, who counter that any price reductions would be offset by higher costs for prescription drugs not covered by the “most favored nation” framework. One of their main critiques is that pharmaceutical companies have increased their profit margins while working with the administration.

In April, staff working for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released an analysis that looked at 15 of the companies that have agreed to this drug-pricing plan and found that their combined profits jumped 66% over the past year to $177 billion. The report noted that the tax cuts Trump signed into law last year “exempted or delayed many of the most expensive drugs” from price negotiations with Medicare.

The Trump administration has countered that they consider Sanders’ critique to be flawed, saying that it’s based on the list prices for pharmaceutical drugs instead of the actual price that patients pay.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

A nonprofit advocacy group, Social Equity LA, organized with local cannabis business owners to oppose the measure in letters to Mayor Karen Bass.

Luis Rivera, executive director of the nonprofit, said Measure CB risks legitimizing the illegal cannabis industry while linking city finances to the tax revenue the businesses would generate. The measure also would undermine Proposition 64, the state law that requires cannabis businesses to be licensed, he said. And amid the city’s struggles to track and close illegal cannabis businesses, Rivera said it will be difficult to force them to pay up.

“There’s no guarantee or mechanism to assure that illegal operators will pay the taxes or fulfill their obligations,” Rivera said.

Even if they pay taxes, illegal operators could undercut legal businesses by selling unregulated products and avoiding requirements, such as code inspections and safety tests for merchandise, that legal businesses must fulfill to keep their licenses, he said. For an already struggling industry, the answer isn’t taxing more businesses, he said — it’s lowering taxes.

May 1 (UPI) — Brazil’s Congress approved legislation that could significantly reduce prison sentences for former President Jair Bolsonaro and several supporters convicted over the 2023 attempted coup.

Both chambers of Congress voted Thursday by wide margins to overturn a veto by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, allowing changes to how sentences are served for crimes linked to coup attempts.

Local media described the vote as further evidence of tensions between Lula’s government and a Congress dominated by conservative factions.

Newspapers, including Estadão and Folha de S.Paulo, said lawmakers dealt a “double blow” to Lula in less than 24 hours after the Senate also rejected, for the first time in 130 years, a presidential nominee for Brazil’s Supreme Court.

The legislation would directly benefit Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison for leading the alleged coup plot, as well as dozens of former officials and hundreds of demonstrators linked to the Jan. 8, 2023, assault on government institutions in Brasília.

After the congressional vote, Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, the former president’s son and a presidential candidate, wrote on X that the decision “is the first step toward full justice for the political persecution victims of Jan. 8.”

“The defeat of the Workers’ Party is the victory of Brazil,” he added.

The measure focuses on changes to sentencing rules. By overturning Lula’s veto, lawmakers established that convicts would no longer serve cumulative sentences for each individual offense, such as criminal association or damage to public property.

Instead, courts would apply only the sentence tied to the most serious crime, sharply reducing total prison time.

In Bolsonaro’s case, the change would cut his sentence from 27 years to a maximum of 12 years. Under Brazilian law, inmates may qualify for legal benefits after serving part of their sentence, potentially allowing the former president to seek parole or the end of his house arrest within an estimated two to four years.

The law is expected to face challenges before the Supreme Federal Court on grounds that Congress may have overstepped judicial authority and violated constitutional principles by altering sentences tied to crimes against the state.

While the court reviews the measure’s constitutionality, judges could suspend its implementation, preventing any immediate reduction of Bolsonaro’s sentence until a final ruling is issued.

Bolsonaro, who has been under temporary humanitarian house arrest since March 27 after suffering bilateral pneumonia, was admitted Friday to DF Star Hospital in Brasília after authorization from Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, according to local outlet G1 Globo.

The 71-year-old former president is scheduled to undergo shoulder surgery to repair a torn rotator cuff and related injuries.

The judicial developments come amid early campaigning ahead of Brazil’s October presidential election, where Flávio Bolsonaro is emerging as Lula’s main challenger. Several polls show the two tied in a potential runoff election.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Legislature approved a new congressional map intended to maximize Republicans’ advantage in the state as part of the national redistricting battle that President Trump launched ahead of this year’s midterms.

The vote came just two days after Gov. Ron DeSantis unveiled his proposal and the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The decision could make it harder for Democrats to challenge Republican efforts to redraw congressional districts in ways that limit the influence of nonwhite voters.

DeSantis’ map could increase Republicans’ advantage in Florida’s House delegation to 24 to 4, up from the current split of 20 to 8. The potential four-seat gain is the same as what Virginia Democrats expect from a recent redistricting referendum, which is being challenged in state court there.

Florida’s new districts are certain to face lawsuits as well, especially because the state constitution prohibits redistricting for explicitly partisan purposes. DeSantis and his aides believe those provisions will not be a legal barrier because they have been weakened previously by the Florida Supreme Court and again by Wednesday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Florida Republicans, comfortable in their supermajority in both legislative chambers, said little about the new districts during the whirlwind special session. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka (R-Fort Myers), limited her remarks to careful answers about an “evolving legal landscape” as Democrats’ asked her about the redistricting effort.

“I believe that there is a likelihood that that map will be upheld against legal challenge,” Persons-Mulicka said.

Opposition was vocal but futile

Democrats, activists and some citizens to decried the process as a partisan power play to satisfy Trump, boost DeSantis’ future ambitions and hurt the majority of registered Florida voters who are not Republicans.

“Y’all are doing this because y’all’s daddy in the White House is injecting national political objectives into what should be a state-driven process,” Rep. Michele Rayner (D-St. Petersburg) told her Republican colleagues before an 83-28 vote in favor of the measure.

The Florida Senate later approved the plan in a 21-17 vote.

Rep. Angie Nixon, a Jacksonville Democrat, chided Republicans for yielding the redistricting process to DeSantis, whose second term expires in January.

“Last time I checked, we’re the ones who were supposed to be drawing the map,” she said, “and yet we are allowing y’all to continue to hold the water of the governor, who is a lame duck and just trying to figure out what his next job is going to be.”

Democrats diminished in metro areas

The new map reshapes districts in Democratic areas around Orlando, the Tampa-St. Petersburg area and in south Florida around Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami. The changes could cost Reps. Jared Moskowitz and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, among others, their seats.

DeSantis and his aides said before and during the session that new map is necessary to account for population growth in suburban and exurban areas since the 2020 census and to ensure Florida has a “race-neutral” congressional plan.

The proposal presumed the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wednesday decision, which specifically struck down a Louisiana congressional district drawn for the electorate to be majority-Black. Historically, Black voters have aligned more with Democrats, while a majority of white voters lean toward Republicans.

The changes in Florida include the effective elimination of one nearly majority Black south Florida district that was represented by Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, a Black Democrat, until her resignation earlier this month.

Lawmakers fast-tracked the measures

From the session’s opening bell Tuesday morning, Republican leaders moved swiftly.

In one of just two committee hearings, Senate Rules Chair Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples) said she wanted “everybody who has taken the time and effort to come to Capitol to have an opportunity to speak.” Then she declared each speaker would have 30 seconds.

“I know that doesn’t seem like a lot but it actually is, uh, if you’re concise,” she said.

Deborah Courtney drove more than two hours from from Jacksonville and noted that all citizen speakers expressed opposition.

“Why are you doing this redistricting now?” she asked senators. “I doubt that your phone have been ringing off the hook from your constituents going, hey, we need some new maps.”

Rob Woods came from the Tampa area, which under the new map could have no Democratic representation in the U.S. House. A Black man, Wood told senators he was a veteran who said he “bought in from elementary school” on notions of the U.S. as an equal-opportunity democracy.

Now, he said, “it seems as if we are back in that period of Reconstruction, moving back to Jim Crow.”

On the House floor, Persons-Mulicka sidestepped specifics about what factors went into the map. She repeatedly called it “race-neutral,” citing testimony from DeSantis aide Jason Poreda, who took sole credit for the map during the session and did not disclose the names of any architects. But asked about Poreda’s admission that he examined party affiliation and voting patterns, Persons-Mulicka balked.

“I cannot speak to the intent of the map drawer,” she said.

DeSantis unveiled the map on Fox News

Persons-Mulicka and Sen. Don Gaetz, who sponsored the map in the Senate, deflected questions about why DeSantis unveiled the plan on Fox News.

Gaetz, a Crestview Republican, confirmed he had no part in drafting the map and forwarded the governor’s proposal to other senators as soon as he received it late Monday morning.

There’s no guarantee that new maps across the country will play out the way two parties hope. For example, Texas based its revised lines largely on Trump’s performance in 2024, redistributing the president’s voters across more districts to pull them into the Republican column. But Trump’s popularity has waned since his reelection, including among Latino voters who figure prominently in the state.

Florida could face a similar conundrum. Creating more majority-Republican districts could leave margins thin enough to allow for Democratic victories, especially if there’s an anti-Trump backlash at the polls this year.

Some Republicans have expressed worry about that possibility, and a handful voted against the measure in the Florida Legislature.

The governor already took a hit because of the session. He had wanted lawmakers to adopt state regulations on artificial intelligence, ostensibly protecting minors from harmful material, while rolling back vaccine mandates for students in Florida’s public schools. House Speaker Daniel Perez, a Republican but not a DeSantis ally, spiked both ideas.

DeSantis called it “political shenanigans.”

House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell (D-Tampa) lamented that Republicans still delivered DeSantis the big-ticket item that he wanted.

“On destroying our democracy, they’ve been aligned,” she said, “and that’s what we did here today.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Supporters of a billionaire tax said Sunday that they had gathered nearly twice as many signatures as necessary to qualify the controversial proposal for the November ballot.

Opponents of the proposal argue that it already has driven wealthy Californians — crucial to funding the state’s volatile budget — to other parts of the nation. Advocates, however, say the proposed tax is critical to compensate for federal healthcare funding cuts that will harm the state’s most vulnerable residents.

“Most Californians and most billionaires recognize how reasonable and necessary this proposal is — both to keep emergency rooms open and to save California businesses from closing,” said Suzanne Jimenez, the chief of staff of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the chief proponent of the effort. “A very small group of the most controversial billionaires on the planet tried to stop” this effort, she added, but when “our growing coalition files these signatures, David will have won the first round against Goliath.”

The union, which represents more than 120,000 healthcare workers, patients and consumers, launched the effort to counter massive healthcare funding cuts that President Trump signed last year. The California Budget & Policy Center estimated that as many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals could shutter, and other healthcare services would be slashed unless new funding was found.

The proposal would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion, with some exclusions, such as property. The levy could be paid over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on food assistance and education programs. The proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it.

Supporters need to submit the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters to county elections officials by June 24. They say they have gathered nearly 1.6 million signatures.

Opponents of the measure, which has divided liberals — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) supports it while Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes it — said the proposal would destroy California’s economy and budget, while doing nothing to address the state’s underlying financial issues.

“This wealth tax would have a devastating impact on our economy, state budget, and the cost of living for all Californians,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the bipartisan California Business Roundtable. “The measure doesn’t do anything to reduce the state’s $35-billion-plus budget deficit and does nothing to address the decade of overspending that led to the structural deficit. In fact, because the state relies so heavily on high-income-earner tax revenue, this measure could lead to reduced budget revenue in the long term as highly mobile wealthy individuals leave the state to avoid this new tax.”

He also argued that the proposal could result in higher taxes for all Californians.

“This is an everyone tax that is called a billionaire tax,” Lapsley said, “and we will ensure Californians understand the truth on the devastating consequences this initiative will have.”

SACRAMENTO — A ballot measure that would require Californians to show identification every time they vote in person, or use a special pin number when submitting mail-in ballots, has qualified for the November ballot, elections officials announced Friday.

The measure also would require election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, aligning with a Republican-led push for new restrictions on voters in the wake of President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, and that undocumented immigrants are swaying elections by voting illegally.

Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio from San Diego has been pushing the measure for several years, while Trump and Republicans also are seeking a similar initiative at the federal level.

If passed, the California ballot measure would require a voter to present government-issued identification, such as a state driver’s license, every time they vote. Voters mailing ballots would be required to write a four-digit number, essentially a pin number, on their ballots matching the one generated when they registered to vote.

The pin would come from ID such as a driver’s license, or could be generated from the county. The vast majority of Californians mail in their ballots in elections.

Under the measure, election officials also must ensure that registered voters are U.S. citizens by using information from government records, which could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, and maintain accurate voter registration lists.

DeMaio said the measure is different than a federal proposal, known as the SAVE Act, which stalled out in the U.S. Senate this week.

DeMaio said the state ballot measure “does not do away with mail in ballots, because voters of all political backgrounds like the convenience of mail in ballots. So we want to keep that convenience.”

The ballot measure needs a simple majority to pass.

Under current law, Californians are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. They are required to provide identification when registering to vote, and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and a U.S. citizen.

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, told the Times that her group is committed to fighting the measure, arguing it would make it harder for people in the state to vote.

She said that people may forget to use a pin on their mail-in ballot, leading to their vote being disqualified. Similar changes in Texas, she said, led to a rise in rejected ballots due to technical errors.

“It doesn’t really weed out illegal voting,” which doesn’t actually exist, she said, “but it does cause more ballots to be incorrectly flagged and ultimately rejected.”

ACLU of Northern and Southern California, Common Cause, Disability Rights California also oppose the measure.

DeMaio filed for the ballot initiative in 2021 and 2023, but did not move forward with the signature collection process in order to fine-tune the ballot language.

He said his ballot measure wasn’t focused primarily about making sure that undocumented people don’t vote.

“That’s one element of concern that we’ve heard from some groups, but it really is making sure that, number one, we properly maintain our voter rolls,” he said.

California’s trial attorneys and Uber — longtime courtroom foes — are officially bringing their fight to the November ballot.

A coalition of lawyers and advocates announced Thursday that it has gathered enough signatures to ask voters to support a “first in the nation” law that would make rideshare companies legally responsible for sexual assaults that happen to a driver or customer during a trip. Uber has argued it’s not liable for assaults committed by drivers, who are considered independent contractors.

“We must hold Uber accountable today,” said Danielle Tudahl, who recounted being sexually harassed and chased by an Uber driver after ordering a ride through the app, at a Sacramento news conference. “Californians are finally demanding action to try and close some of these gaps and put people’s safety over corporate profits.”

Uber has described the ballot measure, which is sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California, or CAOC, as retaliation for its own November ballot push to cap how much attorneys can earn in car crash cases in California.

“This ballot measure is a cynical ploy by billboard lawyers,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for A More Affordable California, an Uber-backed coalition. “CAOC didn’t spend millions to put this on the ballot to protect survivors — their goal is protecting billboard lawyer profits.”

The coalition that supports Uber announced last week it had gathered enough signatures for a measure that would cap attorney fees for car crash cases at 25%, among other changes.

Uber says its ballot measure will give victims a larger cut of their settlement money, rather than the payout getting siphoned off primarily to attorneys and doctors. Attorneys fire back that it will leave thousands of people with small or thorny cases without a lawyer because they won’t have financial incentive to sue.

Both sides are gearing up for an expensive fight. Uber has given more than $77 million. The Alliance Against Corporate Abuse, the CAOC-backed coalition pushing the sexual assault measure, has raised more than $68 million from law firms across the state, according to campaign finance records.

The money has helped pay for billboards that have sprouted across L.A. informing drivers that, according to the New York Times, Uber received a report of sexual assault or misconduct every eight minutes on average between 2017 and 2022. The company was the subject of a series of investigations by the paper into sexual assault by drivers. The company says it has invested billions in keeping riders safe and has “done more than any other company to confront” sexual violence.

The proposed sexual assault measure would require ride-share companies to let riders know if the person picking them up has a history of sexual misconduct and conduct yearly fingerprint and background checks for drivers.

The company is currently fighting more than 3,000 lawsuits from passengers who claim they were sexually assaulted or harassed by Uber drivers. Those cases are being coordinated by a federal judge in California.

The attorney coalition had also pushed an initiative aimed at nullifying Uber’s fee-capping measure if it passed. Alex Stack, a spokesperson for the campaign, said they were “pausing/withdrawing” the measure to “focus the fight on our sexual assault prevention measure and beating Uber’s initiative.”

Earlier this year, tickets to see SZA perform at the Crypto Arena in Los Angeles were selling for $600 the day before they officially went on sale at $35 a piece.

In San Francisco, tickets to see Sam Smith at the newly renovated Castro Theater went on sale for $120, only to be quickly snatched up by scalpers and resold for upwards of $600.

Those are some of the stories that California lawmakers are citing as they advance two plans to change the ticketing landscape. One caps the extent to which resellers can mark up the original ticket price while the other prohibits resellers from selling tickets they don’t yet own.

Democratic Assemblymembers Issac Bryan of Culver City and Matt Haney of San Francisco are each carrying bills that they say would protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive ticket sales.

Both measures are backed by the ticket market’s dominant seller, Beverly Hills-based Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster. Its support has some worried that the bills will help the company crush its competitors and jack up prices.

A federal jury in New York this week found that the company illegally acted as a monopoly in a victory for, among others, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who with colleagues in other states sued the company two years ago and kept going after federal prosecutors settled. Live Nation is now awaiting penalties.

Despite these headwinds, the ticket bills are sailing through the Legislature.

Supporters say the legislation has nothing to do with the antitrust case against Live Nation and helps consumers. Opponents disagree.

“The state Legislature should really be standing up for consumers instead of advancing bills that are there to help a monopoly that has been caught on record calling its fans stupid and has bragged about robbing them blind,” said Jose Barrera, national vice president for the far west region at the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights advocacy group.

Ticketmaster’s competitors in the online resale market are lobbying against the measures, a sign that they view the proposals as a threat to their business.

Jack Sterne, StubHub’s head of policy communications, wrote to CalMatters, stating, “Passing laws that hand the Ticketmaster monopoly more power and don’t actually make tickets more affordable is the last thing California’s leaders should do.”

But Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, which is co-sponsoring the bills, argues that they will regulate the marketplace to better protect fans by limiting price gouging and encouraging the face value — or below face value — exchange of tickets.

“Ultimately, that is what these bills will do, in addition to making sure that the tickets are actually real,” he said. “That is a good thing for California consumers. It’s a good thing for artists and it’s a good thing for these small businesses and nonprofits that make up the independent stages across the state.”

A Live Nation spokesperson said in a statement to CalMatters, “The resale lobby constantly tries to change the subject by pointing fingers at Ticketmaster, even though it has less than 25% of the resale market. This has nothing to do with anyone’s monopoly, but rather is about protecting fans from scalpers and the resale sites that cater to them.”

The company has spent roughly $165,000 on lobbying efforts this legislative session, including to support Bryan’s bill.

‘Unlikely allies’

Bryan’s Assembly Bill 1349 would ban the sale of speculative tickets — or tickets that are not in the possession or ownership of the people who list them online. In an April hearing, Bryan said the bill protects consumers from predatory mark ups.

“This bill is so important that, after our introduction, it brought unlikely allies together,” Bryan said, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. “In fact, this bill brought the Giants and the Dodgers together, brought the National Independent Venue Association and Live Nation together. It brought Kendrick Lamar and Kid Rock together. It brought Isaac Bryan and Donald Trump together.”

Several secondary ticket sellers are fighting the measure, including StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. The three companies have spent roughly $1.1 million dollars on lobbying efforts this legislative session, which included opposition to Bryan’s bill.

People watch fireworks during Bad Bunny’s halftime show from a parking garage outside Super Bowl LX at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara on Feb. 8, 2026. Photo by Jungho Kim for CalMatters

Opponents including Robert Herrell, executive director for the Consumer Federation of California, argue that the bill strengthens Live Nation Ticketmaster’s grip on the ticketing and live entertainment industry. According to them, the measure would give Live Nation complete control over the ticket even after it has been purchased — meaning, for example, that consumers could lose the ability to sell it or give it away.

“There’s no consumer choice in the matter,” said Herrell. “They can keep people out of shows if they want to. There have been situations where, if you bought a ticket on the secondary market, you’ve been denied entry into a show.”
Proponents say Herrell and other opponents are mistaken. They say they are not trying to prevent transferability but rather, they want to protect fans from speculative costs.

“We want those rooms full,” said Ron Gubitz, executive director of Music Artists Coalition, which is co-sponsoring both bills. “So you have to be able to transfer a ticket. We just want it to be in a way that’s safe, trustworthy and not creating this run on the market that exists now.”

Gubitz pointed to a recent Bruno Mars concert, where tickets were on StubHub for $400 to $2,000 before they were on sale through Ticketmaster.

“That’s crazy,” he said. “That’s a speculative ticket that Bryan’s bill is trying to stop. That shouldn’t happen. It’s not fair to anybody, except for the secondary (market). It seems great for them.”

Price caps in a free market

Haney’s Assembly Bill 1720, also known as the California Fans First Act, would put a 10% cap on resale event ticket markups, inclusive of the ticket fees. In other words, a reseller could not charge more than 10% higher than the original ticket price.

In an interview with CalMatters, Haney said artists, independent venues and downtowns are currently being “screwed over and exploited” by scalpers and brokers.

“We can’t allow the status quo to continue if we want to ensure Californians have access to affordable tickets to see their favorite artists or if we want independent venues or the broader landscape of musicians and artists to thrive in our state,” he said.

Haney rejected the idea that his bill would strengthen the Live Nation Ticketmaster monopoly, saying that the company is one of the biggest operators and profiteers of the secondary ticket market and would therefore be subject to the same restrictions as any other platform or broker.

“I don’t think it’s a free market to allow folks to come in and buy up all these tickets and then create scarcity and then you’re now required to buy your ticket at a much higher price from someone who had nothing to do with the event,” he said. “This is not something we would ever allow for airplane tickets or even dinner reservations.”

The bill has been criticized by opponents like Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at Progressive Policy Institute, who said price caps notoriously distort the market, describing them as “anti-consumer, anti-competitive and anti-artist.”

“If you shut down the resale market with price caps then guess what? Ticket buyers have no place to go but right back to Ticketmaster,” said Moss. “If (Live Nation) succeed(s) in decimating the resale market, then they steer millions and millions of fans back to their own ticketing platform where they charge monopoly ticket fees and where fans are hostage to their glitchy online platform and all of their data, privacy and security concerns that we always hear about in the news.”

Those concerns didn’t stop the bill from passing out of the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism last week with a 6-1 vote. The bill also passed out of the Assembly Committee on Privacy & Consumer Protection on Thursday with a 9-4 vote.

Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow for CalMatters.