Republish
California was a model for transparency. Now the Capitol operates in the dark
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 was a model for transparency. Now the Capitol operates in the dark
Share this:
California was once a national leader in requiring public officials to conduct their business — really our business — in public.
Beginning with the Ralph M. Brown Act of 1953, which imposed strict limits on secret meetings by local governments, California’s Legislature adopted several “sunshine bills,” as they were dubbed. The Bagley-Keene Act extended the Brown Act’s open meeting requirements to state agencies, while the Public Records Act guaranteed access to all but a few documents state and local agencies maintained.
However, while the Legislature was willing to have the sun shine on others, it largely exempted itself. Thus, “caucuses” could meet behind closed doors to decide the fate of legislation, essentially scripting what would be said in open sessions before voting. Legislative appropriations committees could — and did — secretly decide which bills would reach the floors of both houses and just announce the winners and losers without explanation.
At one time, legislative secrecy was kept in check, more or less, by having two political parties and a substantial corps of reporters. Party leaders could reveal what their rivals were cooking up and reporters could penetrate clandestine deal-making through sources.
However, as California became dominated by one party and the Capitol press corps shrank due to upheavals in media industries, secrecy became more entrenched.
A case in point is the current effort by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators to draw new maps for the state’s 53 congressional districts with the aim of capturing enough new seats to offset the Republican gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts. California’s new maps are being drafted in secret, a sharp contrast with the months-long public deliberations four years ago of the state’s redistricting commission, resulting in the current maps.
Apparently, the new maps will be revealed briefly before the Legislature votes to place them on a November special election ballot. There are no plans to allow them to be modified before adoption.
What’s happening vis-à-vis redistricting is right in line with the Capitol’s penchant for doing the public’s business in private.
Another example, as CalMatters revealed last year, is an unwritten rule that prohibits legislators from actually discussing changes in their bills during committee meetings, essentially rendering such hearings to meaningless charades.
READ NEXT
Democracy in the dark: How California lawmakers are trying to shield themselves from public view
Still another is the massive project to build a new annex to the Capitol itself. The Legislature has exempted the project from the California Environmental Quality Act and refuses to release details on what is being built or its costs, which appear to be massive, despite the state’s chronic, multibillion-dollar budget deficits. It has also required persons involved in the project to sign non-disclosure pledges to keep details secret.
A pending measure, Assembly Bill 1392, would exempt home addresses of public officials and political candidates from being revealed. While touted as a safety measure, it would make it impossible for journalists to determine whether officials actually live in the districts they represent — something that has popped up numerous times.
Legislators also want to make local government activities less transparent.
One measure now pending in the Capitol, Assembly Bill 699, is the latest of several efforts to allow proponents of local bond measures to omit tax consequences from ballot summaries, but rather place them in voter pamphlets, making them less prominent.
Closing the circle that began with passage of the Brown Act in 1953, Senate Bill 707 would make it easier for some local agencies to conduct their meetings via the internet rather than in person, thus making it easier to mute criticism from the public.
While California’s dominant Democrats often accuse President Donald Trump of undermining democracy, their growing desire for secrecy is equally abhorrent.
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