SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
california
'Your Victory Is Fleeting': After California Measure Falls Short, Sanders Threatens Billionaires With Federal Wealth Tax
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," said economist Gabriel Zucman, who led the charge for California's failed proposal.
Nov 10, 2026
California's wealth tax proposal has fallen just short after the state's richest residents spent hundreds of millions of dollars to mobilize voters against it. But Sen. Bernie Sanders is warning them not to get too comfortable.
Sanders (I-Vt.) argued that Proposition 40, which would have used revenue from a one-time 5% tax on billionaire residents to fund the state’s healthcare system, performed quite well given the resources that powerful tech barons like Google co-founder Sergey Brin and its former CEO Eric Schmidt deployed to fight it.
"Oligarchs spent $425 million against California's billionaire wealth tax—outraising supporters 250 to 1 on ads," Sanders wrote on social media. "The result: They got a 'whopping' 52% [of the vote]."
"I've got bad news for these oligarchs," Sanders continued. "Your victory is fleeting. We will pass a federal billionaire wealth tax and end your greed."
Many of the wealthiest Americans pay lower effective tax rates than ordinary workers because much of their wealth is held in stocks, whose gains are generally untaxed until sold—and can be taxed at lower rates than wages when realized.
Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans support a federal tax on the wealth of the superrich—including most Republicans.
One February poll by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation found that 80% of Americans, including 72% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats, supported the idea of a federal tax of 2% on fortunes over $50 million and a 3% tax on those over $1 billion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has called for a wealth tax for years and made it central to her 2020 presidential bid, has argued that "the best way to do a wealth tax is to do a national wealth tax."
In January, she told The New Republic that a federal proposal would avoid some of the pitfalls the rich used to fearmonger about California’s proposal, such as the possibility of simply fleeing across state lines to avoid paying it.
Escaping a national tax, she said, would mean having to “give up your US citizenship, and forfeit your passport.”
French economist Gabriel Zucman, who helped lead the push for California’s ballot measure, said he was “not surprised” by its defeat.
"The money spent by the billionaires was critical," he told NPR. "Anyone who lives in California has been carpet-bombed by a deluge of ads. One can easily see how this could be pivotal in such a closely contested ballot."
But he said that last week's midterm elections, which saw Democrats swept into power on a wave of anti-billionaire anger, showed that the fight over a wealth tax was not something that could easily be ignored.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," Zucman said. "Many of the newly elected Democratic senators have been campaigning on curbing the power and influence of billionaires. One can reasonably expect to see significant progress in the next two years."
Sanders, who introduced a 5% annual wealth tax on those worth $1 billion or more with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, renewed his call to pass the bill after the elections.
Another proposal, which would impose an annual 2% tax on net worth above $50 million, increasing to 3% on wealth above $1 billion, has gained the support of 63 Democrats, including Warren, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Van Hollen, who has suggested he may challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to become Senate majority leader when Democrats retake the chamber, told Politico last week that he thinks there’s “growing support” in the Democratic caucus for a tax on the ultrarich.
“People are recognizing that we have a tax system that allows individuals to accumulate huge amounts of wealth," he said.
“It is essential that we show the American people where we stand,” Van Hollen added. “If [President Donald Trump] vetoes it, it will just show people that he’s on the side of billionaires.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
California's Prop 40 Falls Short, But Wealth Tax Fight Shows 'Billionaires Are Frightened by Voters'
"We may have lost this battle, but we have no doubt we’ll win the war to rein in extreme wealth—both here and around the world," said Patriotic Millionaires.
Nov 10, 2026
Bombarded by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of often misleading ads funded by tech titans and other monied interests, California voters narrowly rejected Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires, but proponents of the measure to fund vital social programs said they'll try again in 2028.
Prop 40 was defeated 52.8% to 47.2%, according to The Associated Press. Also known as the California Billionaire Tax, the ballot measure was sponsored by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) and would have imposed a 5% tax on the wealth of California residents and trusts worth more than $1 billion.
Proponents argued the tax would have generated tens of billions of dollars to help fund healthcare, food assistance, and public education programs facing funding pressures, including from cuts resulting from President Donald Trump’s attacks on Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other lifelines.
We’re disappointed to see Prop 40 lost in California.But all hope is not lost. We may have lost this battle, but we have no doubt we’ll win the war to rein in extreme wealth—both here and around the world.Read our full statement here: patrioticmillionaires.org/press/patrio...
[image or embed]
— Patriotic Millionaires (@patrioticmillionaires.org) November 10, 2026 at 9:56 AM
The "No on 40" campaign—including efforts supporting Propositions 41 and 42, a pair of anti-Prop 40 poison pills—was bankrolled by some of Silicon Valley's wealthiest figures, led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who contributed upward of $100 million to a committee he established to defeat the measure.
Overall, billionaire opponents contributed approximately $378.4 million, compared with just $33.5 million raised by Prop 40 supporters, according to CalMatters.
“That is incredibly corrosive and corrupting to our democracy and our political system, and that’s been dominating the discussion here in California,” SEIU-UHW president Dan Regan told CalMatters.
Morris Pearl, a former managing director at the investment firm BlackRock who now chairs the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires, said he's "sad that the ballot measure ultimately fell short, but the attention about what happened in California has sparked not only a national and international conversation around inequality, but also about how billionaires are frightened by voters who very clearly want to shake up the economic status quo."
Initial polling showed 55% of California voters supporting Prop 40 shortly after its introduction last year, and the measure soon won the backing of prominent national figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
But Prop 40 was opposed by California's Democratic establishment, with Gov. Gavin Newsom, Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra, and the mayors of most major cities coming out against the measure. So did the state NAACP, California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and other left-leaning groups.
The editors of the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, San Jose Mercury News, and virtually every major newspaper in the state—the Sacramento Bee being the most notable exception—also urged voters to reject Prop 40.
The "No on 40" campaign's ads relied heavily on misleading scare tactics that portrayed the one-time tax on approximately 200 people as a threat to ordinary Californians. In one particularly deceptive AI-generated ad, bureaucrats terrorize suburban families, steal a bike and a scooter from children, and even try to take a baby's stroller, warning that every Californian would have to disclose their assets or face a 40% penalty.
"Make no mistake—what happened on November 3 was a referendum on the economy, which is why billionaires poured so much money into defeating Proposition 40 and retaining their grasp on their political and economic power," Pearl said. "It will take continued work with leaders from all political parties to fully tackle and address the problem that is extreme wealth concentration."
Economic justice campaigners are already looking forward to trying to pass a billionaire tax in 2028.
“That’s not a hypothetical," said Regan. "That’s our plan."
San Francisco organizer Nadia Rahman said: "And more broadly, we need to tax billionaires throughout the country. We should all demand the new 2027 Congress do so with the mandate the voters gave them last week."
"Contact your congressional representatives," she added, "and tell them to tax the rich."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Citizen Shot by ICE in California Sues Trump Administration for $25 Million
Carlos Jimenez claims the FBI drove him from the hospital to the scene for an interrogation, "while the bullet and fragments remained lodged in his body," even as he "kept bleeding and vomiting in the agents' van."
Nov 09, 2026
Carlos Jimenez, a US citizen and father of three who still has bullet fragments lodged near his lung after being shot by a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in California last year, is suing the Trump administration, San Bernardino County, and various agents for over $25 million in damages.
Jimenez, who is from Ontario, east of Los Angeles, filed his complaint against the United States, the county, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officer Eusebio Ortiz, two US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) special agent, and 20 unnamed defendants on Friday.
While Jimenez was driving to work on the morning of October 30, 2025, he approached agents conducting an immigration operation to let them know they were near a bus stop for schoolchildren. Ortiz ultimately shot him, but it was Jimenez, not the officer, who then faced charges that have since been dropped.
As with some other people ICE or CBP agents have shot—sometimes fatally—the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees both agencies, has claimed Jimenez "attempted to run officers over" federal agents "by reversing directly at them without stopping," but his lawyers have disputed that account.
After the shooting, at a local hospital, FBI agents "interfered with his medical care," according to a complaint. They allegedly prevented Jimenez from talking to healthcare providers, removed him from the hospital bed, and "handcuffed him with a leather waist restraint."
As the FBI drove Jimenez back to the scene for an interrogation, "while the bullet and fragments remained lodged in his body," he "kept bleeding and vomiting in the agents' van," and they told him not to "ruin their vehicle," the filing claims. He was taken to West Valley Detention Center, where he was also denied adequate medical care.
A few weeks later, a grand jury indicted Jimenez, whom federal prosecutors charged with assaulting a federal officer using a deadly or dangerous weapon, but "the criminal case later became the subject of a dispute over evidence," Newsweek reported Monday.
As the outlet detailed:
On May 5, US District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato ordered the government to turn over communications and operational records sought by the defense; this included responsive communications on government-issued and personal phones. The order also required a declaration under penalty of perjury from Ortiz if no responsive messages from him existed.
Jimenez entered into a diversion agreement shortly afterward. After he completed its conditions, Kato dismissed the indictment with prejudice on November 2, meaning the charge cannot be refiled. The dismissal order did not make a finding that federal officers used excessive force or otherwise acted unlawfully.
The Guardian highlighted that in addition to calling the criminal charges against Jimenez "fabricated," the complaint "alleges that the FBI falsely claimed that two neighbors witnessed the incident and told an agent that Jimenez's vehicle had enough room to pull forward without reversing. When Jimenez’s legal team interviewed those witnesses, both denied making those statements and said they were unaware there had been a shooting until they saw news reports."
While the FBI declined to comment and DHS referred questions to the US Department of Justice, Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesperson for the DOJ in Los Angeles, said in an email to the newspaper that Jimenez "could have exercised his right to take the case to trial, but he instead requested that our office agree to resolve the case through a diversion agreement."
Jimenez is among at least 32 people fired upon by federal immigration agents as part of Republican President Donald Trump's mass detention and deportation campaign. Others include Renee Good and Alex Pretti, US citizens killed early this year in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Silverio Villegas González, a Mexican man fatally shot last year near Chicago, Illinois.
At the beginning of October, Good's family filed a pair of lawsuits against the federal government and immigration officials over her death and an alleged conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in Minnesota's Twin Cities. A week later, Villegas González's relatives filed a legal claim against the administration over his "execution-style killing." Pretti's family hasn't yet sued, but his parents demanded justice at a press conference late last month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
California's Young Workers Didn't Sit This One Out—We Made Sure of It
When candidates take our concerns seriously and when they're backed by an organization like the UAW willing to do the work of reaching young voters where they live and work, young people turn out.
Nov 08, 2026
Every cycle like clockwork, young voters are written off as too disillusioned or too distracted to show up in a midterm. On Tuesday, that outdated notion was laid to rest. Nationally and across California, young people showed up. And they showed up in numbers that made the difference in power-shifting races for LA Mayor-elect Nithya Raman, California Democratic Rep.-elects Randy Villegas and Marni von Wilpert, and others.
I know because I watched it happen.
I'm the president of UAW 4811, the union of more than 60,000 graduate workers, postdocs, researchers, and staff at the University of California, part of the more than 100,000 UAW members in California. Most of us are young. Too many of us spend the majority of our paychecks on rent and work second jobs just to stay in the cities where we teach and do research. We are exactly the voters campaigns have written off for decades as too hard to reach and too unreliable to count on.
Our members didn't knock on 57,244 doors to celebrate for one night. We did it because we intend to build a future in California, one where you can finish your degree, do work that matters, and still afford to live in the city you call home.
So this year, we stopped waiting for someone else to reach us. We reached out to each other.
Over the course of this campaign, UAW members in California contacted hundreds of thousands of voters. We knocked on 57,224 doors and made 170,748 phone calls. In the final stretch, we worked 4,389 get-out-the-vote shifts and had 41,360 personal conversations with voters.
Those numbers didn't come from mass texts or robocalls—they came from teaching assistants knocking doors on weekends, researchers phonebanking after their experiments wrapped up, and university staff standing on campus asking students whether they had a plan to vote. Peer-to-peer contact is the most effective way to turn out a young voter, and nobody is better positioned to talk to young people on a college campus than the young workers who keep those campuses running.
It worked. The day before the election, students and workers packed Bruin Plaza at UCLA to rally with Nithya Raman and promise to bring their roommates and labmates to the polls. The next day, lines at polling places stretched across California campuses from Davis to San Diego. And across the state, races were won by candidates who believed young voters were worth fighting for.
In Los Angeles last May, UAW was the first major union to endorse Nithya Raman for mayor. We did it because she has delivered for the people being priced out of this city. She led passage of some of the strongest renter protections in the country, capped rent increases, cut the red tape that keeps housing from getting built, and wrote the ordinance that protects our immigrant neighbors from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A city that can't hold on to its young people doesn't have a future. Raman understood that, and young Angelenos rewarded her for it.
In the Central Valley, Randy Villegas ran on what working families there live with every day: the cost of healthcare, the need for good jobs, and communities that have been taken for granted for too long. UAW members canvassed in Bakersfield alongside him, reaching young voters in a region where youth turnout has historically lagged far behind the rest of the state.
In San Diego County, Marni von Wilpert ran a campaign rooted in standing up for working people, including the researchers and scientists whose work drives the region's economy at a moment when federal attacks on research have put thousands of livelihoods at risk. UAW members at UC San Diego and across the county made sure their neighbors knew what was at stake.
There's a lesson here for every party, every campaign, and every pundit: Young people aren't apathetic. We're exhausted by politicians who ignore us until they need us and never seem to deliver once they win. When candidates take our concerns seriously (rent, wages, research funding, immigrant rights, climate), and when they're backed by an organization willing to do the work of reaching young voters where they live and work, young people turn out.
What comes next matters just as much. We will hold these leaders to the commitments they made, and we will keep organizing. Our members didn't knock on 57,244 doors to celebrate for one night. We did it because we intend to build a future in California, one where you can finish your degree, do work that matters, and still afford to live in the city you call home.
Tuesday proved that young workers can move elections. Now we're going to move policy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Should Terrify All of Us': Google Sued After AI Chatbot Allegedly Helped Teen Plan Suicide
As Google faces allegations that its Gemini chatbot helped a 13-year-old girl plan how to kill herself, the company, plus Meta and TikTok, sued to block a California law meant to safeguard minors from social media addiction.
Nov 05, 2026
The parents of a 13-year-old girl who allegedly used Google's Gemini artificial intelligence chatbot to plan her suicide sued the tech titan Wednesday on the child's behalf, a move that came as Google, Meta, and TikTok filed lawsuits to block California from enforcing a new law designed to protect children from the addictive features of social media platforms.
Parents of a girl identified as "Emma" in a lawsuit filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court in California alleged that Google effectively turned a school-issued Chromebook laptop computer into a tool allowing a dangerous psychological relationship between their daughter and Gemini.
Although Emma ultimately did not attempt to kill herself, the lawsuit states that she "told her mother that she had thought about wanting to be dead."
"Over several months, [Google's] Gemini chatbot diagnosed a previously active, well-adjusted 13-year-old girl with a battery of severe psychological disorders, helped her plan her suicide and funeral, and coached her to conceal her distress and self-harm from her family—all without providing a single alert to school personnel or her parents," EdTech Law Center, which is representing the plaintiffs along with the firm Quereshi Law, said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, at one point, Emma reportedly pleaded with the chatbot, "How do i stop my addiction of asking AI random questions and yappi[n]g with AI?"
"Emma never sought out Gemini—it just showed up in [a] Google search one day—but by March 2026, she was exchanging thousands of messages a month, unable to free herself from the chatbot’s grip," EdTech said.
"The complaint alleges that Google executives knew that the Gemini model it released in December 2025 was the most dangerous yet but rushed it out anyway to gain ground on its competitors," the firm explained. "Emma brings claims for defective design, failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and infliction of emotional distress, as well as a claim under California’s Companion Chatbot Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 22601), which took effect in 2026."
Google spokesperson José Castañeda said Thursday in a statement that “for years, we’ve shown hotline information directly in search when someone may be experiencing a mental health crisis."
"We’ve built those same protections into search AI features, connecting people with real-world support," he added.
Brendan Bouffard, associate general counsel for AI and privacy at the children's advocacy group Fairplay, said Thursday: "The idea of an untested AI chatbot helping a 13-year-old girl plan her own suicide should terrify all of us, but this is the sick new reality Google has created by forcing its AI products onto school-issued devices."
"Google claims its Chromebooks are there to help students learn, but in reality, the company was experimenting on kids like Emma by pushing them to use Gemini, a product the company knew was dangerous but rushed out anyway," Bouffard continued.
“As this lawsuit shows, AI chatbots are not safe for kids," he added. "They also undermine students’ ability to learn and think critically. Yet just this week, Google announced it would turn off 'search' for schools that refuse to use its AI products. It’s clear this massive corporation does not care about children’s safety—it only cares about profits."
There has been an increasing number of lawsuits targeting AI companies whose chatbots have allegedly helped users plan to kill themselves or others.
Emma's suit was filed on the same day that Google, TikTok, and Meta—which operates platforms including Facebook, Instagram, and Threads—launched separate lawsuits seeking to stop California from enforcing AB 1709, a law signed by outgoing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in September prohibiting social media platforms from providing children under 16 with features deemed psychologically exploitative and addictive.
The tech titans argue that the restrictions violate their First Amendment rights and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields online platforms from liability for content posted by third parties.
Meta's lawyers asserted that California's attempt to “appoint the state as the editor, curator, and controller of online speech” and “override Meta’s editorial judgment about how to curate and display these billions of posts of third-party speech" runs afoul of the Constitution.
In 2023, Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined dozens of other states in suing Meta, alleging that the company deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to addict children and teenagers through features such as infinite scrolling, personalized recommendations, and constant notifications, while concealing evidence of the platforms' mental health harms.
A proposed $17 billion settlement was announced in August, under which Meta agreed to changes including restrictions on nighttime use, notifications, and certain features available to minors.
A Los Angeles jury found in March that Meta and Google acted negligently by harming a child user with their social media platforms’ addictive design features in a landmark verdict that came on the heels of a $375 million fine imposed on Meta by a New Mexico jury, which found that the company violated the state’s Unfair Practices Act by misleading users and exposing children to harm.
The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline—which offers 24/7, free, and confidential support—can be reached by calling or texting 988, or through chat at 988lifeline.org.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Setting 'Powerful Example' for Other States, Newsom Works to Clear Country's Largest Death Row
"The death penalty is a flawed, expensive, and error-filled practice that fails us all," said Equal Justice Initiative's Bryan Stevenson, urging other elected officials to follow the California governor's lead.
Nov 05, 2026
Opponents of capital punishment applauded on Thursday after Gov. Gavin Newsom moved to commute all of California's death sentences, sparing up to 548 lives as the term-limited Democrat prepares to leave office with eyes on the White House.
The New York Times had reported last month that Newsom was mulling the move, which he addressed in a Thursday letter initially obtained by The Sacramento Bee: "After nearly 30 years in public office, I have come to understand the limits of what government can justly accomplish. I take this action because I firmly believe that state-sanctioned killing is incompatible with California's values, undermines the foundations of our legal system, and diminishes each of us."
The Bee explained that "Newsom can commute single-felony sentences, but must receive the California Supreme Court’s approval to commute sentences for people with multiple convictions. Four of the seven justices must approve those requests, though there is no time limit for them to do so. If they do not approve before Newsom leaves office on January 3, 2027, the requests lapse and do not roll over to the next governor, according to attorney Natasha Minsker, an anti-death penalty advocate."
However, Democratic Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra has pledged to maintain the death penalty moratorium that Newsom issued in 2019, and could keep pushing to make all 548 sentences life without parole if the state's high court doesn't initially sign off. In his letter, Newsom cited his decades of publicly opposing state-sanctioned killings and his executive order seven years ago, which "formalized the de facto moratorium on executions in place since 2006, the last year California executed anyone."
"The people sentenced to death in California caused indescribable suffering to victims, their families, communities, and our state as a whole," but "I have concluded the state cannot morally kill them," Newsom wrote. "Because the death penalty is inherently incompatible with our legal system's commitment to justice, I have determined that this clemency decision, while difficult in many respects, will ultimately affirm the strength and integrity of our state and its justice system."
The outgoing governor called the decision "among the most difficult" of his career, but also "a righteous action." He said it follows "the moral leadership of past presidents, including our Founding Fathers, and governors across America," and is informed by what he has heard from "crime victims and survivors, public safety experts, and religious, civil rights, and other community leaders."
Coalitions of civil rights groups, business executives, faith leaders, victims' family members, former corrections professionals, and ex-prosecutors have recently urged Newsom to take this action before leaving office. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, he is now among a dozen state and federal leaders who have made sweeping clemency grants to death row inmates since capital punishment was reinstated in the United States in 1976.
It is arguably the most significant of those actions because of its scope. California has the largest death row in not only the United States, but the Western Hemisphere, according to the governor's letter. The Times reported that "Newsom's action cancels approximately one-fourth of all death sentences nationwide."
The national ACLU and its three affiliates in the state were among the groups pressuring the governor to act. The organization's executive director, Anthony Romero, declared Thursday that Newsom "made history" and "honored his commitment to end a system that conflicts with human dignity, fairness, and the values enshrined in our Constitution."
"These commutations reflect what justice demands: an end to a racist, error-prone, and inhumane punishment that has burdened California for far too long," Romero continued. "By taking this step, Gov. Newsom has affirmed that the death penalty has no place in California, and he showed real courage by confronting racialized injustice head-on."
US Campaign to End the Death Penalty's executive director, Laura Porter, also offered praise: "We are grateful that Gov. Newsom, like other Republican and Democratic leaders across the country, has decided to grant clemency to individuals on death row. The historic number of commuted sentences would set a new record and offer an acknowledgment that the death penalty process is flawed."
Bryan Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative's founder and executive director and the author of the award-winning memoir Just Mercy, similarly welcomed the development, saying: "The death penalty is a flawed, expensive, and error-filled practice that fails us all. I commend Gov. Newsom for this historic act and hope that other state elected officials follow his lead... Now more than ever, Americans need leaders who act on our beliefs, protect the vulnerable, and stand up for human rights and human dignity."
As the Times noted:
Death penalty opponents have planned a national ad campaign praising him for the move. The minute-long commercial casts the governor’s decision as an act of courage and leadership inspired by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dolores Huerta, and Robert F. Kennedy. It will air on dozens of news and political shows nationwide, said Dan Newman, a Democratic strategist who advises both Mr. Newsom and the anti-death penalty groups sponsoring the ad.
Mr. Newman said that the governor had been motivated by personal conviction. But the ad could also help Mr. Newsom in a 2028 presidential campaign.
Among the Californians cheering Newsom's move is Jeanne Woodford, who presided over four executions as warden of San Quentin State Prison, signed a recent letter to Newsom, and shared that "as someone who has carried out executions in California, I am haunted by the fear that we will execute an innocent person."
"Innocent people have been sentenced to death in California," she stressed. "Since 1973, more than 200 individuals nationwide, including eight in California, have been freed from death row after they were found to have been innocent. Gov. Newsom will ensure that California will never execute an innocent person."
Newsom's move may save some innocent prisoners, but it is also set to spare some notorious ones. The Times pointed out that the state's death row includes "Richard Allen Davis, who murdered Polly Klaas, a 12-year-old, after kidnapping her from her home in 1993," as well as "Cary Stayner, who killed four women near Yosemite in 1999, and the 1980s serial killer Charles Ng."
Relatives of the 12-year-old are divided: Her father, Marc Klaas, has criticized Newsom for the 2019 moratorium, but her stepsister, Jess Nichol, recently met with the governor and encouraged his action. She said in a statement that "I won't pretend I've always opposed the death penalty. I used to think the man who killed my sister deserved execution. But over time I've realized that whether he's executed has absolutely nothing to do with my recovery or with real public safety."
"The system tells survivors that execution matters to our healing," Nichol added. "It doesn't. It's a distraction from what we actually need."
While President Donald Trump—whose Republican Party just lost its majorities in Congress—is infamously pro-death penalty, fresh calls for ending capital punishment nationwide have mounted since late September, when Christa Pike survived two injections of pentobarbital from a doctor involved with an earlier botched execution at the maximum security prison in Tennessee.
"There hasn't been a moment since that night when I haven't been in pain," Pike said last week. "My body hurts. My arms hurt. My hands hurt. My throat hurts. I still struggle to speak. And the pain isn't just physical. There is pain in my mind and in my soul. I had not contemplated life beyond that night, and I'm deeply hurt by the incompetence that has put so many people in this terrible position. I continue to think about my victim's family and the terrible pain and loss they have endured. I am recovering, and I know that I am getting stronger. But healing is not the same as being okay."
Keep ReadingShow Less
California Billionaire Tax Headed for Defeat After $300+ Million Ad Blitz by Superrich
"If you spend enough on ads, you really can get people to vote against their own interests," lamented one observer.
Nov 04, 2026
Proposition 40, the California proposal for a one-time 5% tax on the state's billionaires, appeared headed for defeat Wednesday after a spending blitz exceeding $300 million by some of the state's wealthiest residents helped turn a potentially landmark effort to make plutocrats pay their fare share into one of the most expensive ballot fights in state history.
With around 60% of expected votes counted, Prop 40—also known as the California Billionaire Tax—was losing by a 56% to 44% margin, according to CalMatters and The Associated Press, which had not yet projected the final outcome due to the significant number of uncounted ballots.
The measure, which is sponsored by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of California residents and trusts worth more than $1 billion. Affecting approximately 200 billionaires, Prop 40 would generate tens of billions of dollars to help fund healthcare, food assistance, and public education programs facing funding pressures, including cuts resulting from President Donald Trump's attacks on Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other social safety net lifelines.
Polling showed a majority of California voters—55%—supporting Prop 40 last December, buoyed by the backing of prominent national figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
In early 2026, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other tech billionaires began pouring money into efforts to oppose the initiative and support competing ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, which were specifically designed to undermine or nullify Prop 40.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom also came out against Prop 40. Critics accused the potential 2028 presidential contender of trying to bamboozle voters with a plan for a national billionaire income tax, knowing that very rich people actually have relatively little income when compared with their investments and other assets that would be subject to taxation under Prop 40.
By June, Prop 40 was polling under 50%. By October, with a deluge of anti-Prop 40 ads flooding the airwaves and internet, support barely topped 40%.
According to CalMatters, billionaires and business interests spent $316.7 million on the campaign against Prop 40, including spending on Props 41 and 42. Most of that money was raised by Building a Better California, a political action committee funded by prominent tech executives, venture capitalists, and business leaders.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, opponents of Prop 40 outspent supporters of the measure by a staggering 250: 1 margin.
"We won’t need much analysis to identify what swayed voters," Yousef Baig wrote for CalMatters. "The playbook for defeating the tax was simple: Stoke economic fears and confuse Californians."
Baig continued:
Prop 40’s authors may have even doomed their own campaign with an amendment provision that opponents seized on. If a supermajority—two-thirds of the Legislature—wanted to retool the tax, they could, so long as “the statute is consistent with and furthers the purposes of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.” Opponents created ads proclaiming politicians would use this clause to come after our retirement accounts.
It lit up social media. Some Californians are so cynical that they figured 7 out of 10 state lawmakers would vote to extend a billionaire tax to people with fewer zeros and commas invested. It also made one of Brin’s countermeasures, Proposition 42, an easy sell. It would bar taxes on personal property and its passage would make it almost impossible to enact a similar tax in the future. It was ahead in the count Wednesday morning.
"If there is a glimmer of hope, it is that Brin and other billionaires stepped into the sunshine," Baig said. "The record spending and attack ads and political gamesmanship was done out in the open. Many Californians took notice, whether they backed Prop 40 or not."
"The state’s billionaires may have avoided this wealth tax," he added, "but voters won’t forget how some of the richest people on the planet behaved when fairness was on the ballot."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Obscene': Billionaire Funders Allowed California Wealth Tax Foes to Outspend Proponents 250 to 1
"California, send these oligarchs a message: Democracy is not for sale," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Nov 03, 2026
Foes of a California ballot initiative to establish a one-time 5% wealth tax on the state's billionaires have spent vastly more on advertising than proponents—and polls show that money may be having an impact.
A Monday report in The Washington Post estimated that opponents of California’s Proposition 40, led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have spent 250 times more than those in favor of the tax.
In total, the Post found, tax opponents have raised more than $379 million to fight the wealth tax, while proponents of the initiative have raised just $35 million.
The spending disparity in advertising is even greater, as tax opponents have spent $148 million on ads, while proponents have spent a mere $572,000.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin has been leading the charge against the measure, having donated more than $100 million to ensure its defeat.
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Kleiner Perkins chairman John Doerr, meanwhile, have both chipped in $40 million each to help defeat the proposal.
The spending blitz comes as polling has shown a steady erosion of support for Proposition 40.
As noted by Gizmodo on Monday, two recent surveys—one from the Public Policy Institute of California and another from the University of California Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies—show that opposition to the measure now outpaces support. For several months prior, polls showed a majority of California voters in favor of the wealth tax.
David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University, told the Post that opponents of the tax appear to have held their fire until late in the campaign, when most voters have traditionally started to really pay attention to ballot initiatives.
"The strategy has been to blanket the airwaves in weeks three and four," McCuan said, "and carpet-bomb the airwaves in the last two weeks."
McCuan also estimated that the battle over Proposition 40 "will be the most expensive ballot measure in the history of the world."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) decried the billionaire campaign to defeat the tax in a Monday social media post.
"Oligarchs in California spent $379 million against Prop 40, a 5% billionaire wealth tax, outraising supporters 250-1," Sanders wrote. "They’d rather poor kids die than pay a little more in taxes. Obscene. California, send these oligarchs a message: Democracy is not for sale. Vote for Prop 40."
Economist Gabriel Zucman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview with NPR published Monday that the wealth tax in California was part of a broader fight to take away power from the ultrarich, who have seen their wealth grow by leaps and bounds over the last several decades.
"If California says, 'We can tax billionaires. We can tax the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world,'" Zucman explained, "it will be the beginning of not only a broader US-wide movement, ultimately paving the way for a federal wealth tax—but I think it will be the beginning of an international movement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ': Supreme Court Rejects Push to Set Aside 20K California Ballots
The high court "declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California," one law professor said.
Nov 02, 2026
Although the US Supreme Court has a right-wing supermajority with multiple appointees of President Donald Trump, the nation's top tribunal rejected his administration's effort to set aside thousands of California ballots on the eve of the midterm elections.
The one-sentence order simply says that the application for an injunction pending appeal, presented to Justice Elena Kagan—one of the three liberals—and referred by her to the full court, is denied, with no noted dissents.
Trump has long claimed that voter fraud by immigrants is a rampant issue in the United States—despite evidence to the contrary—and his Department of Justice sued California last week after the state refused to set aside ballots from a list of voters the DOJ claimed could be noncitizens and thus ineligible to vote, based on databases known to be full of errors.
Democratic election attorney Marc Elias was among those celebrating the justices' denial of an emergency stay. He noted that "the court did not even ask for opposition briefs!"
The lawyer called it "a complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ," and "another victory for Elias Law Group and our clients."
Joyce White Vance, a University of Alabama law professor and legal commentator on networks including MS NOW, similarly declared that "the Supreme Court declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California."
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—who could lead the chamber if Democrats win a majority on Tuesday—also applauded that "the Supreme Court just denied the Trump Justice Department's corrupt request for an injunction in the California vote count," calling it "another complete and total defeat for the extremists."
As The Associated Press reported Monday:
A district court judge previously denied the Justice Department’s request and warned that the demand could disenfranchise citizens in Tuesday’s midterm elections to determine control of Congress.
Also on Monday in Washington, another federal judge ruled against the administration's efforts to make last-minute demands of California election officials, finding they violated the US Constitution.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday also pointed to recent rulings against the administration in a social media exchange with Bill Essayli, first assistant US attorney for the Central District of California.
While the Supreme Court has sometimes sided with Trump's agenda during his second term, it has rejected some of his recent attacks on democracy, including a September decision against his US Postal Service rules for mail-in ballots.
Despite the win at the high court on Monday, the president's efforts to interfere with the midterms are expected to continue. Given that, the Advancement Project, Legal Defense Fund, and NAACP are seeking an order to block federal law enforcement agents from serving as "election monitors."
The midterms come as Trump's public approval is at an all-time low, and Democrats highlight his illegal war on Iran and the related cost-of-living crisis in their efforts to secure majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives for the rest of his second term.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Shuts Down Trump DOJ Threats to Prosecute Election Officials
A labor leader called the ruling "a resounding win for the election workers who make our democracy happen and for all Americans’ freedom to vote."
Oct 31, 2026
Days after the US Department of Justice threatened election officials in all 50 states with possible prosecution unless they preserve election records—the latest push by the Trump administration to cast doubt on the validity of the upcoming midterm elections—a federal judge on Friday ordered the DOJ to reach out to the officials again, this time to rescind the threat.
The DOJ must contact the state and local officials who received warnings this week and inform them that the "threats of prosecution to election officials and workers... have been enjoined," said District Judge Trina Thompson in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Thompson ordered officials with the Trump administration to stop demanding that election workers remove voters from rolls, sequester ballots cast by people the White House has claimed are ineligible to vote due to being noncitizens, and refuse to issue ballots to people who have been included on the administration's error-riddled lists of residents whom it says have voted illegally.
"Because the public has a paramount interest in ensuring that election officials and workers are able to carry out their work in accordance with federal law and election procedure, and the official day of the elections is only a couple of days away, the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in plaintiffs’ favor," said Thompson.
The ruling was handed down in connection with a lawsuit filed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and other groups.
Protect Democracy, part of the coalition that sued, called the threat "yet another attempt designed to shake Americans’ confidence in the election results and undermine our electoral process."
Patrick Moran, president of AFSCME, said Thompson's ruling and the temporary restraining order she issued were "a resounding win for the election workers who make our democracy happen and for all Americans’ freedom to vote."
"We applaud the court for granting a temporary restraining order protecting election workers from unlawful prosecution simply for following the law and forbidding the administration from interfering with the lawful administration of elections," said Moran. "Now, our nation’s nonpartisan election workers, many of them AFSCME members, can continue to do their jobs, and our elections can continue to proceed freely and fairly.”
With President Donald Trump's approval rating at an historic low and Republicans facing widespread disapproval of the illegal war on Iran they've supported, healthcare cuts they voted for, and violent mass deportation operations they've funded, the White House has approached the midterms with a laser focus on sowing doubt about the results before the elections are completed.
The DOJ demanded confidential voter roll data from states across the country last year, pushing the baseless claim that the lists were rife with the names of noncitizens who would be illegally permitted to vote. The administration has been rebuffed by dozens of officials.
In response, the Department of Homeland Security and DOJ have used commercially available data and federal records to cobble together their own lists of voters they say have cast ballots illegally. The results of the effort have included a list of 185 people in Nevada, all of whom were proven to be citizens, and a list of 28 immigrants in California whom federal officials said were suspected of voting before they became naturalized citizens—representing about .0001% of all registered voters in the state.
The administration has also pushed for the certification of Alaska's election results to be blocked, citing the presence of two Dan Sullivans on the ballot—one clearly labeled as the incumbent Republican senator, the other not—and on Thursday, sent the threatening letters to election officials across the country.
Earlier this week, Judge David Carter in the US District Court for the Central District of California said that the administration's threats "must stop," throwing out the DOJ's attempt to force the state to sequester ballots cast by 20,000 people officials claimed were not citizens.
"DOJ tried to bully election workers with threats and intimidation," Norm Eisen, co-founder of Democracy Defenders Action, said Saturday. "Last night, a federal court shut it down. We and our partners are fighting to protect elections in the court of law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy