Can Legislature make California happy?

Can California legislate its way to happiness?

Former Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon is committed to trying, though he puts his own happiness at only two out of 10 (ask him again after November, when his term ends, he told CalMatters).

After being forced to hand over his leadership post last summer, the Lakewood Democrat became the chairperson of the newly formed Select Committee on Happiness and Public Policy Outcomes, telling Politico last October that lawmakers “don’t take happiness seriously.” 

At the committee’s first meeting Tuesday, Rendon said he was inspired to take on the topic after watching the 2011 documentary “Happy” 14 times in a two-day period. This committee is at least 11 years in the making, he said. 

Roko Belic, the filmmaker and first witness in the three-hour hearing, said from his visits to 14 countries, the keys to happiness are nurturing strong interpersonal and communal relationships; leading a life that includes meaning, play or novelty; and a sense of gratitude. Other experts also mentioned economic stability (but not necessarily economic wealth); a connection to the environment; and resilience. 

How happy are Californians? 

Mark Baldassare, the Public Policy Institute of California’s survey director, cited the organization’s September 2023 survey, which found 58% of Californian adults said they were “pretty happy,” 16% “very happy” and 26% “not too happy.” But with the number of “not too happy” Californians growing, Baldassare suggested that legislators should “pay attention” to younger adults and lower-income residents who are less happy than others. 

So how to get to a happier place?

In addition to tossing around abstract theories — including nods to Buddhism, Aristotle and Maslow — speakers floated some potential policy solutions. These ranged from the very ambitious (universal healthcare) to the more minor (increasing urban green spaces). 

And while Rendon told CalMatters that not all ways to boost happiness would be a “government directive,” a country that ranks high in happiness with a strong social safety net “pretty much jives with my political ideology.”

The hearing was, for the most part, optimistic. Panelists espoused how increasing happiness benefited the greater good: Happy people live longer, are healthier, more successful at work and are more likely to volunteer. 

But at times, the grave consequences of an unhappy public came to the forefront — particularly when legislators spoke about the “ripple effects” on mental health, depression and crime.

• Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, a Santa Clarita Valley Democrat and committee member: “You don’t have kids walking into schools with guns to shoot people if they’re happy, you know?”

On the subject of California’s well-being, lawmakers and advocacy groups promoted a number of health-related bills Tuesday:

• Chemical additives: Following the success of his measure last year to ban four food additives (which was initially considered a “Skittles ban” before the proposal dropped the chemical used in the candy), Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel announced a bill to ban the sale of foods containing certain chemicals in public schools. The Encino Democrat’’s bill would prohibit titanium dioxide, red dye No. 40 (found in cereals and pudding) and five other synthetic dyes. Also, supporters promoted another bill Monday to ban toxic chemicals in tampons and other products, after Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar bill last year.

• Health care coverage: A coalition of health care organizations, labor groups and other advocates gathered inside the state Capitol to drum up support for a litany of bills that would strengthen Medi-Cal access (such as for children or those who lost income) address Black maternal mortality rates and make it easier for undocumented immigrants to apply for health care coverage and more.
  

It may be much closer than Gov. Newsom and other supporters wanted or expected, but Proposition 1 opponents conceded Tuesday that the mental health measure will likely pass. 

Californians Against Prop. 1 issued a statement denouncing the measure and saying that proponents, with their nearly $21 million warchest, were “so overconfident and overstuffed with cash.”

As of late Tuesday, Prop. 1 was barely passing with 50% of the vote. The thin margin, opponents argue, should serve as a warning sign not to turn Prop. 1 into a “humanitarian disaster.” The group also reiterated concerns that the measure will make it easier to force people into involuntary confinement. 

• The opposition group, in a statement: “The vote on Prop. 1 was closer than it had to be, because Prop. 1 itself is much worse than it had to be…. We fear for the future when our leaders figure out that forced treatment is both expensive and largely ineffective. How will they tighten the screws later?”

Newsom has made mental health a priority since taking office in 2019, and this measure and the $6.4 billion it allows the state to borrow will be key to making his proposals a reality.

November ballot: Another measure appears headed to voters. Californians for Financial Education announced Tuesday they have submitted nearly 900,000 signatures to qualify an initiative that would require California high school students to take a personal finance course. The proponents, who easily met their May 7 deadline, need at least 546,651 valid signatures to make it official.

California is at the cutting edge of artificial intelligence: Most of the top AI companies are headquartered here. 

So when a state agency focused on privacy proposes rules, it’s a big deal.

As CalMatters technology reporter Khari Johnson explains, the California Privacy Protection Agency board voted 3-2 in favor of regulations on how businesses use artificial intelligence and collect the personal information of consumers, workers and students. Any company with more than $25 million in annual revenue or the personal data of more than 100,000 users would be covered.

But more than 20 digital privacy and labor groups say the proposed rules include too many potential off-ramps — specifically by defining automated decision-making technology to only include tech that “substantially facilitates human decision making.”

• Vinhcent Le, a board member: “If this advances as is, we should focus on making sure this doesn’t become a big loophole.”

Read more about these rules in Khari’s story. And catch up with CalMatters’ coverage on how AI is being used to prevent homelessness and to help answer tax questions.

To save water, the state proposed strict conservation measures for 400-plus cities and water agencies. But some local officials objected, citing cost. Did the state pull back? Find out from CalMatters water reporter Rachel Becker.