Republish
California’s politicians overlook potential pitfalls in their zeal for new laws
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
California’s politicians overlook potential pitfalls in their zeal for new laws
Share this:
Sociologist Robert Merton coined the term “unintended consequences” in a 1936 essay, exploring how people take actions they believe will have positive outcomes, but later learn they have negative impacts. Someone could — and should — write a book about the seemingly countless incidents of adverse consequences from the decrees issued by California legislators and governors.
Perhaps the most spectacular example is the ill-named “deregulation” of California’s electrical power system 29 years ago, embraced by legislators of both parties and then-Gov. Pete Wilson. Advocates hailed the overhaul as a bold act that would assure ample power supplies while reducing consumers’ utility bills.
However, it was an unmitigated disaster that invited manipulation of the electricity market and drove up costs. It plunged Pacific Gas and Electric Co. into bankruptcy and pushed Southern California Edison to the brink of insolvency.
Oddly, it did not curb the urge of California politicians to tamper with how their constituents obtain and pay for electricity. This year’s example is Senate Bill 540, a controversial measure which would, if enacted, have California join a regional power consortium with unpredictable consequences.
There are other major examples of legislation that backfired and is worth noting.
One is Assembly Bill 218, a 2019 bill that temporarily suspended the statute of limitations on sexual abuse lawsuits. Proponents said it would allow victims to finally receive justice, brushing aside criticism that it would be a bonanza for lawyers. Hundreds of suits against local governments and school systems have been filed, resulting in multibillion-dollar settlements, including a $4 billion payout by Los Angeles County to settle 6,800 claims from former foster children and formerly incarcerated minors.
READ NEXT
Heinous, heartbreaking — and expensive. California schools face avalanche of sex abuse claims
The spate of abuse suits has also distorted the ability of public entities to acquire liability insurance. The bill’s author, former Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, has called for changes.
“When I authored AB 218 my priority was to protect kids from sex abuse & ensure victims could have some justice,” Gonzalez, now head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, said in social media post. “Now, some unscrupulous attorneys are treating it like feeding frenzy. I support reforms to cap attorneys’ fees or other measures to reel the costs in for public entities.”
There also are many other current examples of potentially harmful consequences, including the late-blooming effort by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators to alter — temporarily, they say — California’s 52 congressional districts to produce more Democratic members and offset a Republican-sponsored gerrymander in Texas.
The electric power and gerrymandering measures are not the only pieces of pending litigation with potentially negative consequences. Two of them involve school operations.
One is Assembly Bill 1264, aimed at removing ultra-processed foods from the millions of meals public schools serve to their students.
Advocates say such foods adversely affect children’s health, which is certainly a legitimate issue if proven. However, critics say that the legislation, which tasks defining such foods to a state agency, could ban foods that Californians commonly consume and result in a flood of lawsuits, not unlike what happened after Gonzalez’s child abuse law was enacted.
The other is Assembly Bill 495, which would expand the list of people who could take charge of public school students in the absence of their parents or designated caregivers. It’s aimed at protecting children of parents who have been swept up in the federal government’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants. However, critics say just about anyone could claim to be a substitute caregiver under the legislation’s loose definition, thereby potentially endangering children rather than protecting them.
As Merton pointed out in his essay, advocates of new policies or programs always stress their positive intentions, while downplaying or ignoring downside risks. It’s a dangerous syndrome, as California politicians should have learned by now.
READ NEXT
Will California ban ultra-processed foods in school meals?
California cut coal from its energy supply. Why it might plug back into fossil fuels
Dan WaltersOpinion Columnist
Dan Walters is one of most decorated and widely syndicated columnists in California history, authoring a column four times a week that offers his view and analysis of the state’s political, economic,... More by Dan Walters