Why did a CA school safety bill fail?

A classroom at Burnt Ranch Elementary School in Trinity County on Dec. 13, 2019. Photo by Dave Woody for CalMatters

I’m CalMatters politics intern Jenna Peterson, pinch-hitting for Lynn today. 

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a bill that would let California teachers decide when to call the police on a student. When the state Senate voted against sending the bill to Gov. Gavin Newsom in the legislative session’s final days, I wondered what happened. 

Tensions around Assembly Bill 2441 rose in the last couple of weeks before lawmakers adjourned. The Senate Republican Caucus released its own analysis of the bill, which supporters said included misinformation and fear mongering. Multiple law enforcement agencies had also voiced their concerns about school and community safety. 

Senate GOP Leader Brian Jones of San Diego told me he doesn’t believe Republicans and law enforcement were raising unwarranted fears. “California voters and taxpayers are fed up with the homeless situation in California. They’re fed up with smash and grabs,” he said. “They’re fed up with the retail theft and fed up with the crisis of fentanyl in our state.” 

Shortly after the story’s publication, I learned that the bill had been amended so teachers would still be required to call the police in the case of a student assaulting or threatening them.

“Because law enforcement lobbyists were spreading fear, we took that out just to make it that much easier for senators to feel comfortable with the bill,” Assemblymember Ash Kalra, the bill’s author and a San Jose Democrat, told me last week. 

So when the bill got to the Senate floor on Aug. 29, it only called for two changes: Allow teachers to decide to call the police if a student possesses or uses controlled substances, and no longer charge students with a crime for “willful disturbance.”

But even with the amendment, AB 2441 failed in the Senate by a vote of 20-14, with six senators — all Democrats — not voting. Five other Democrats voted against the bill. 

With some of these senators voting for a more expansive version of the bill in 2022, some supporters say it might not be a coincidence that we’re in an election year. 

Rachel Bhagwat, legislative advocate at ACLU California Action, a bill sponsor: “A lot of our legislators are up for reelection. Some of them are in tight races. Law enforcement is very influential at the Capitol and in Sacramento, and they’re influential in elections as well.”

As Bhagwat watched senators discuss the bill, she was frustrated that they weren’t focusing on the bill’s main goal of addressing the school-to-prison pipeline. 

“I really wasn’t hearing the discourse centering around what’s best for students,” she said. “I was hearing a lot of very distracting narratives that were muddying the situation.” 

Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed five bills Tuesday that did make it to his desk, and they were all related to artificial intelligence.

AI and elections: Newsom OK’d three bills that target the use of deepfakes in elections. Assembly Bill 2839 allows judges to issue injunctions against individuals who create or publish deceptive AI content, requiring that they pay damages or take down the content. AB 2655 requires that, if a user reports a deepfake, online platforms either label it or remove it from their site within 72 hours. And AB 2355 requires political campaigns to disclose if they use AI in advertising. 

AI in Hollywood: Newsom also signed two bills to require contracts for the use of actors’ and performers’ digital likenesses. AB 2602 requires performers to  be professionally represented when negotiating their contract. AB 1836 makes it so companies must have the consent of deceased performers’ estates before using an AI replica of their likeness. 

And, yes, all five came from the Assembly and Newsom kept to his record so far of not acting on Senate bills.

Advocates and lobbyists in the Capitol Rotunda, during the final session of the year at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Sept. 14, 2023. Photo by Rahul Lal for CalMatters

If you watch the Legislature, another thing you might notice is that sometimes there isn’t a lot of give and take on bills in committee hearings. 

CalMatters Digital Democracy reporter Ryan Sabalow has uncovered a reason for that: There’s an unwritten rule in the state Capitol that legislators shouldn’t talk about amendments in the public eye. 

State Sen. Dave Min, an Irvine Democrat, highlighted the rule this summer when he admonished Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Chula Vista Democrat, during an open hearing. 

“We are happy to continue discussing this offline, but I just don’t think it’s appropriate —  nor is it in the interest of our time — to be negotiating and discussing particular provisions from the dais,” Min told Alvarez. 

According to Senate leaders, committee chairpersons can make exceptions and discuss amendments, but Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire told CalMatters that he requests that legislators try to secure amendments before public hearings. The Assembly takes a similar approach to amendments, said Cynthia Moreno, a spokesperson for Speaker Robert Rivas. 

Previous CalMatters reporting has found that, in the last five years, Democrats have voted “no” less than 1% of the time on average, which could indicate that decisions are made before bills come to a vote. 

David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition: “This is exactly the kind of conversation that should be taking place in public. The public has a right to understand why lawmakers are making the decisions they’re making.”

Read more about the unwritten rule in Ryan’s story. 

Dr. Diana Ramos, California’s surgeon general, speaks at the Strong Start & Beyond press conference at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco on Sept. 17, 2024. The initiative aims at improving reproductive and maternal health outcomes in California. Photo by Florence Middleton for CalMatters

Let’s get into some health care news:

Maternal health: California Surgeon General Diana E. Ramos has a new goal: To cut maternal deaths in half by the end of 2026, reports CalMatters’ Ana B. Ibarra. 

From 2019 to 2021, 200 women died shortly before, during or after childbirth, but some estimates say that 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. Maternal deaths also disproportionately affect Black women, who are three times more likely to die during or soon after pregnancy than other racial groups. 

Ramos announced Tuesday that health officials are launching a new education campaign about the causes of pregnancy-related deaths — including an at-home questionnaire for expecting parents that help them determine their risk of complications during pregnancy. The state also plans on implementing the Obstetric Morbidity Index, a tool healthcare providers in other countries use to identify risks of complications. 

The campaign comes as 56 labor and delivery wards have closed across California since 2012. Read more on the maternal health effort in Ana’s story.

Health costs: California’s average health care costs are the third highest in the country. But how much difference will a cap on cost increases set earlier this year make? 

By 2029, California hospitals, doctors and insurers cannot increase their spending by more than 3% each year. The cap is modeled after plans in eight other states — including Massachusetts — but California’s is the most aggressive. 

CalMatters reporter Kristen Hwang looked at what’s happened in Massachusetts for comparison. In 2012, that state’s Health Policy Commission set a cap of 3.6% a year, which until 2017 resulted in commercial spending that was $7.2 billion less than the national average. But since then, health care spending per capita has grown consistently more than 3.6% annually because of a lack of enforcement. 

A consumer advocate told Kristen that tougher penalties are needed: Only one hospital has been reprimanded for excessive spending, and the maximum fine is $500,000. 

California officials hope that the fines and other penalties providers will face if they exceed the 3% cap will lead to more effective results than in Massachusetts. Read more about the cost cap in Kristen’s story. 

Ride-share driver and SEIU Gig Workers Union member John Mejia, center, speaks outside the Supreme Court of California in San Francisco on May 21, 2024. The court heard arguments on Prop. 22, a ballot initiative that allows ride-share companies, such as Uber and Lyft, to classify drivers as independent contractors. Photo by Juliana Yamada for CalMatters

In 2020, voters approved Proposition 22 to ensure better health benefits and wages for delivery workers and ride-hailing drivers. But four years later, no one is really enforcing its provisions. CalMatters economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay and video strategy director Robert Meeks have a video segment on Levi’s story breaking down the lack of enforcement. Watch the segment, part of our partnership with PBS SoCal.

SoCalMatters airs at 5:58 p.m. weekdays on PBS SoCal.