Classroom fight ramps up in California election

The political fight over California’s classrooms is intensifying even more.

On one side: Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ advocacy group. It put out its list of local school board endorsements Wednesday, which included a handful of non-LGBTQ candidates for local office — a first for the organization. These candidates are running in March for the school boards of Alameda, Glendale, Orange and Riverside counties.

The organization also included a list of recall efforts that it backs. That includes two Orange Unified School District board members for what it calls “attempting to censor libraries;” a Temecula Valley Unified board member for describing gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk as a pedophile; and a Woodland Joint Unified School District trustee for referring to transgender people as a “social contagion.”

• Tony Hoang, Equality California executive director, in a statement: “When far-right extremist school board candidates try to run on a platform of attacking our students, we will stand against them and stand strong with our pro-equality allies.” 

On the other side: Protect Kids California, a parents rights organization. It filed a lawsuit last week against Attorney General Rob Bonta, accusing him of failing to provide a “neutral title and summary” of its ballot measure, reports The Sacramento Bee. The group is seeking to get its initiative, which it calls the “Protect Kids of California Act of 2024,” on the November ballot and needs to collect 546,651 valid voter signatures by April 29.

But Bonta titled the ballot measure “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth” instead.

The measure would require schools statewide to notify parents if their student identifies as transgender; ban female transgender students from girls’ athletic teams; and prohibit transgender health care for those younger than 18. 

Bonta’s office told The Bee that it takes the power to issue titles and summaries for ballot measures seriously and stands by its decision. But the Liberty Justice Center, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Protect Kids California, said in a statement that Bonta “failed to uphold his duty” because the title is “factually inaccurate, misleading and biased.”

Bonta isn’t the first attorney general to be criticized for not being neutral, but attempts to give the authority to the secretary of state have failed.

CalMatters hosted a panel discussion on the topic of parental rights and education last week. You can watch it here.

In other election news:

Senate ad wars: California’s U.S. Senate primary has drawn the most TV ad spending of any Senate primary in the nation, according to AdImpact. The total is at $38.4 million, with Rep. Adam Schiff supported by $23.3 million worth of ads and Rep. Katier Porter by $12.2 million. The highest spending Republican primary is in Ohio, $24.3 million, and next highest Democratic primary is Maryland, at $21.3 million.

Gov. Gavin Newsom weighs in: The governor put out a campaign cash plea for Democrat Rudy Salas, who is trying again to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao in the 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, Politico reports. The national Democratic machine is boosting Salas against another Democrat, state Sen. Melissa Hurtardo (whose parents received Newsom’s fundraising text), to try to make sure Salas makes the top two, instead of Valadao and Republican Chris Mathys.

Donald Trump gets involved: In another high-profile congressional race, the former president endorsed Republican Assemblymember Vince Fong to succeed former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in the 20th Congressional District. Interestingly, when he dropped out of the race last week, MAGA candidate David Giglio threw his support to Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux.

Some Californians may have been hunkering down during this week’s torrential downpours, but rest assured — summer is coming. And if this year is similar to recent years, temperatures, particularly across southern California, may break historical records. 

But the prospect of a sweltering summer has worker advocates concerned. As CalMatters Capitol reporter Jeanne Kuang explains, despite a 2016 law that directs Cal/OSHA to draft indoor heat rules for employers by 2019, no regulations are on the books yet.

Working under excessive heat can have serious consequences. It can make workers nauseous, vomit and faint. It can even prove fatal: From 2010 through 2017, seven workers in California died from indoor heat. Also, from 2010 through 2018, an average of 185 workers a year claimed injuries from indoor heat.

• Sara Fee, a former employee at an Amazon air freight hub in San Bernardino: “The humidity inside the building was unbearable. You felt heavy in your chest, like it was hard to breathe.”

So why has it taken so long for California — which was the first state to require outdoor heat rules for employers in 2005 — to adopt indoor rules? 

Though the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board is expected to give final approval in March to a rule that would require employers to provide cooling areas and monitor workers when it hits 82 degrees inside workplaces, it took years of negotiating, rulemaking and study.

• Tim Shadix, legal director of the Warehouse Workers Resource Center: “The clock was ticking on the deadline and of course the clock is ticking every day for workers in terms of exposure to heat illness.”

In addition to the delay, worker advocates are concerned how the rule will be enforced. Cal/OSHA has been severely understaffed for years and since January, the agency has operated without a chief. On Tuesday, several unions and worker groups, including SEIU California and the nonprofit Worksafe, sent a letter to Gov. Newsom urging him to appoint the next director soon.

Learn more about workplace indoor heat protections in Jeanne’s story.

Last year, a handful of Silicon Valley tech billionaires announced ambitious plans to build a new community in Solano County on a section of 62,000 acres of farmland they’ve been secretly buying up since 2017. 

Under a corporation known as California Forever, these backers are currently seeking to get a nearly 100-page ballot initiative in front of county voters in November to advance the project. To get residents and state and local officials on board, they’re making promises about a walkable community that has affordable housing, new jobs and new schools.

But as CalMatters’ economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay and housing reporter Ben Christopher write, fulfilling what the people behind the project say are legally binding “guarantees” raises more questions than answers.

For instance, the initiative says California Forever won’t impose new taxes on Solano County residents and any costs to the county will be reimbursed by the company. But some of the planned infrastructure is expected to eventually involve costs to the state, which could mean other county residents footing the bill.

The initiative also pledges 15,000 new jobs that pay 125% of the county’s average annual income — or at least $83,850 a year — but the employers remain unknown. California Forever is pitching that 40,000 to 160,000 new homes could be built, but it’s still unclear what kinds of affordable housing would get built and who would be eligible.

These unknowns are part of the reason why some officials, such as Solano County Supervisor Erin Hannigan, are wary. She said voters still do not have enough information to make an informed decision.

• Hannigan: “I think (the guarantees) will falsely entice people to think this is a good thing. Who’s going to enforce it? You can’t put a directive on a municipality.”

For more on California Forever’s promises, read Levi and Ben’s story.

A state law requires most California public universities and colleges to provide Narcan, which can reverse overdoses from fentanyl and other opioids. But not all colleges have been proactive. Find out which ones have from Li Khan of CalMatters’ College Journalism Network.