window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
},
"news_11964496": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11964496",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11964496",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11964329,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/KQEDLIVE23PBnPelosi-144-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/KQEDLIVE23PBnPelosi-144-qut-160x106.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 106
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/KQEDLIVE23PBnPelosi-144-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/KQEDLIVE23PBnPelosi-144-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1277
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/KQEDLIVE23PBnPelosi-144-qut-1020x678.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 678
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/KQEDLIVE23PBnPelosi-144-qut-1536x1022.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1022
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/KQEDLIVE23PBnPelosi-144-qut-800x532.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 532
}
},
"publishDate": 1697237889,
"modified": 1697237914,
"caption": "Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi speaks with KQED's Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos on Oct. 9, 2023.",
"description": null,
"title": "KQEDLIVE23PBnPelosi-144-qut",
"credit": "Alain McLaughlin/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11963646": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11963646",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11963646",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11963640,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/20231005-Feinstein-Memorial-027-JY-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/20231005-Feinstein-Memorial-027-JY-qut-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/20231005-Feinstein-Memorial-027-JY-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/20231005-Feinstein-Memorial-027-JY-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/20231005-Feinstein-Memorial-027-JY-qut-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/20231005-Feinstein-Memorial-027-JY-qut-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/10/20231005-Feinstein-Memorial-027-JY-qut-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1696551120,
"modified": 1696551146,
"caption": "Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi speaks at her friend Senator Dianne Feinstein’s memorial service at City Hall in San Francisco on Thursday, Oct. 5, 2023. Pelosi and Feinstein were friends for decades, as well as neighbors.",
"description": null,
"title": "Feinstein Memorial",
"credit": "Juliana Yamada/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11962830": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11962830",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11962830",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11962814,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/025_KQED_MattMahanSanJose_11082022-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/025_KQED_MattMahanSanJose_11082022-qut-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/025_KQED_MattMahanSanJose_11082022-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/025_KQED_MattMahanSanJose_11082022-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/025_KQED_MattMahanSanJose_11082022-qut-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/025_KQED_MattMahanSanJose_11082022-qut-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/025_KQED_MattMahanSanJose_11082022-qut-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1695944622,
"modified": 1695944656,
"caption": "San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, pictured at his campaign headquarters on Election Day, Nov. 8, 2022.",
"description": null,
"title": "025_KQED_MattMahanSanJose_11082022-qut",
"credit": "Beth LaBerge/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11962101": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11962101",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11962101",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11962092,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/GettyImages-1410429911-qut-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/GettyImages-1410429911-qut-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/GettyImages-1410429911-qut-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/GettyImages-1410429911-qut-1.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/GettyImages-1410429911-qut-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/GettyImages-1410429911-qut-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/GettyImages-1410429911-qut-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1695336728,
"modified": 1695336765,
"caption": "A home burns as the Oak Fire moves through the area on July 23, 2022 near Mariposa, California.",
"description": null,
"title": "Oak Fire Sparks Evacuations in Mariposa County",
"credit": "Justin Sullivan/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11961270": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11961270",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11961270",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11961241,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/009_KQED_Sacramento_02072023-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/009_KQED_Sacramento_02072023-qut-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/009_KQED_Sacramento_02072023-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/009_KQED_Sacramento_02072023-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/009_KQED_Sacramento_02072023-qut-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/009_KQED_Sacramento_02072023-qut-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/009_KQED_Sacramento_02072023-qut-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1694735042,
"modified": 1694735086,
"caption": "The California State Capitol in Sacramento on Feb. 7, 2023.",
"description": null,
"title": "The California State Capitol in Sacramento on Feb. 7, 2023.",
"credit": "Beth LaBerge/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11960421": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11960421",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11960421",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11960420,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/RS68800_IMG_5293-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/RS68800_IMG_5293-qut-160x104.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 104
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/RS68800_IMG_5293-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/RS68800_IMG_5293-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1250
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/RS68800_IMG_5293-qut-1020x664.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 664
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/RS68800_IMG_5293-qut-1536x1000.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1000
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/09/RS68800_IMG_5293-qut-800x521.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 521
}
},
"publishDate": 1694136763,
"modified": 1694136780,
"caption": "Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, on Political Breakdown on September 7, 2023 in Sacramento.",
"description": null,
"title": "RS68800_IMG_5293-qut",
"credit": "Guy Marzorati/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11959874": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11959874",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11959874",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11959851,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS51575_020_ElSobrante_BettyReidSoskinMiddleSchool_09222021-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS51575_020_ElSobrante_BettyReidSoskinMiddleSchool_09222021-qut-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS51575_020_ElSobrante_BettyReidSoskinMiddleSchool_09222021-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS51575_020_ElSobrante_BettyReidSoskinMiddleSchool_09222021-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1278
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS51575_020_ElSobrante_BettyReidSoskinMiddleSchool_09222021-qut-1020x679.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 679
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS51575_020_ElSobrante_BettyReidSoskinMiddleSchool_09222021-qut-1536x1022.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1022
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS51575_020_ElSobrante_BettyReidSoskinMiddleSchool_09222021-qut-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1693530431,
"modified": 1693530598,
"caption": "State Superintendent Tony Thurmond speaks during a renaming ceremony for Betty Reid Soskin Middle School in El Sobrante on Sept. 22, 2021.",
"description": null,
"title": "RS51575_020_ElSobrante_BettyReidSoskinMiddleSchool_09222021-qut",
"credit": "Beth LaBerge/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11959081": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11959081",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11959081",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11959080,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68282_IMG_1518-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68282_IMG_1518-qut-160x120.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 120
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68282_IMG_1518-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68282_IMG_1518-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1440
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68282_IMG_1518-qut-1020x765.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 765
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68282_IMG_1518-qut-1536x1152.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1152
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68282_IMG_1518-qut-800x600.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 600
}
},
"publishDate": 1692915737,
"modified": 1692915772,
"caption": "Rep. John Duarte, R-Modesto, outside of his district office in Turlock, CA on August 23, 2023.",
"description": null,
"title": "RS68282_IMG_1518-qut",
"credit": "Marisa Lagos/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11958513": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11958513",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11958513",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11958502,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68024_IMG_5224-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68024_IMG_5224-qut-160x106.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 106
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68024_IMG_5224-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68024_IMG_5224-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1272
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68024_IMG_5224-qut-1020x676.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 676
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68024_IMG_5224-qut-1536x1018.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1018
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS68024_IMG_5224-qut-800x530.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 530
}
},
"publishDate": 1692313906,
"modified": 1692313967,
"caption": "Former California State Controller Betty Yee joins Political Breakdown on August 17, 2023.",
"description": null,
"title": "RS68024_IMG_5224-qut",
"credit": "Guy Marzorati/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11957948": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11957948",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11957948",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11957927,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS62384_021_KQED_OaklandLunarNewYearParade_01292023-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS62384_021_KQED_OaklandLunarNewYearParade_01292023-qut-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS62384_021_KQED_OaklandLunarNewYearParade_01292023-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS62384_021_KQED_OaklandLunarNewYearParade_01292023-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS62384_021_KQED_OaklandLunarNewYearParade_01292023-qut-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS62384_021_KQED_OaklandLunarNewYearParade_01292023-qut-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS62384_021_KQED_OaklandLunarNewYearParade_01292023-qut-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1691707909,
"modified": 1691707993,
"caption": "Assemblymember Evan Low speaks during the Lunar New Year parade in Oakland's Chinatown neighborhood on Jan. 29, 2023.",
"description": null,
"title": "RS62384_021_KQED_OaklandLunarNewYearParade_01292023-qut",
"credit": "Beth LaBerge/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11957369": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11957369",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11957369",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11957359,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS46684_GettyImages-1230553317-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS46684_GettyImages-1230553317-qut-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS46684_GettyImages-1230553317-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS46684_GettyImages-1230553317-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS46684_GettyImages-1230553317-qut-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS46684_GettyImages-1230553317-qut-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/RS46684_GettyImages-1230553317-qut-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1691105012,
"modified": 1691105209,
"caption": "US President Donald Trump boards Air Force One before departing Harlingen, Texas on January 12, 2021.",
"description": null,
"title": "US-POLITICS-TRUMP",
"credit": "Mandel Ngan/AFP",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11956730": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11956730",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11956730",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11956724,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/RS67259_230726-SAN-QUENTIN-MHN-03-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/RS67259_230726-SAN-QUENTIN-MHN-03-qut-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/RS67259_230726-SAN-QUENTIN-MHN-03-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/RS67259_230726-SAN-QUENTIN-MHN-03-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/RS67259_230726-SAN-QUENTIN-MHN-03-qut-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/RS67259_230726-SAN-QUENTIN-MHN-03-qut-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/RS67259_230726-SAN-QUENTIN-MHN-03-qut-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1690498320,
"modified": 1704634698,
"caption": "The entrance to San Quentin State Prison in San Quentin on July 26, 2023. In March, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that the state would seek to transform the maximum security prison into a center focused on the rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals.",
"description": null,
"title": "RS67259_230726-SAN QUENTIN-MHN-03-qut",
"credit": "Martin do Nascimento/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "A prison guard in uniform stands in front of a gate with a building in the background.",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"gmarzorati": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "227",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "227",
"found": true
},
"name": "Guy Marzorati",
"firstName": "Guy",
"lastName": "Marzorati",
"slug": "gmarzorati",
"email": "gmarzorati@KQED.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Correspondent",
"bio": "Guy Marzorati is a correspondent on KQED's California Politics and Government Desk, based in San Jose. A graduate of Santa Clara University, Guy joined KQED in 2013. He reports on state and local politics and produces KQED's digital voter guide.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e7038b8dbfd55b104369b76b1cd0b9de?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "guymarzorati",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "elections",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Guy Marzorati | KQED",
"description": "Correspondent",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e7038b8dbfd55b104369b76b1cd0b9de?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e7038b8dbfd55b104369b76b1cd0b9de?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/gmarzorati"
},
"scottshafer": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "255",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "255",
"found": true
},
"name": "Scott Shafer",
"firstName": "Scott",
"lastName": "Shafer",
"slug": "scottshafer",
"email": "sshafer@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Scott Shafer is a senior editor with the KQED Politics and Government desk. He is co-host of Political Breakdown, the award-winning radio show and podcast with a personal take on the world of politics. Scott came to KQED in 1998 to host the statewide\u003cem> California Report\u003c/em>. Prior to that he had extended stints in politics and government\u003cem>.\u003c/em> He uses that inside experience at KQED in his, reporting, hosting and analysis for the politics desk. Scott collaborated \u003cem>Political Breakdown a\u003c/em>nd on \u003cem>The Political Mind of Jerry Brown, \u003c/em>an eight-part series about the life and extraordinary political career of the former governor. For fun, he plays water polo with the San Francisco Tsunami.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "scottshafer",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Scott Shafer | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/scottshafer"
},
"mlagos": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "3239",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "3239",
"found": true
},
"name": "Marisa Lagos",
"firstName": "Marisa",
"lastName": "Lagos",
"slug": "mlagos",
"email": "mlagos@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Marisa Lagos is a correspondent for KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-hosts the award-winning show and podcast, Political Breakdown. At KQED, Lagos also conducts reporting, analysis and investigations into state, local and national politics for radio, TV, online and onstage. In 2022, she and co-host, Scott Shafer, moderated the only gubernatorial debate in California. In 2020, the \u003ci>Washington Post\u003c/i> named her one of the top political journalists in California; she was nominated for a Peabody and won several other awards for her work investigating the 2017 California wildfires. She has worked at the \u003ci>San Francisco Chronicle\u003c/i>, \u003ci>San Francisco Examiner\u003c/i> and \u003ci>Los Angeles Times\u003c/i>. A UC Santa Barbara graduate, she lives in San Francisco with her two sons and husband.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "@mlagos",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Marisa Lagos | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/mlagos"
},
"fjhabvala": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "8659",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "8659",
"found": true
},
"name": "Farida Jhabvala Romero",
"firstName": "Farida",
"lastName": "Jhabvala Romero",
"slug": "fjhabvala",
"email": "fjhabvala@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Farida Jhabvala Romero is a Labor Correspondent for KQED. She previously covered immigration. Farida was \u003ca href=\"https://www.ccnma.org/2022-most-influential-latina-journalists\">named\u003c/a> one of the 10 Most Influential Latina Journalists in California in 2022 by the California Chicano News Media Association. Her work has won awards from the Society of Professional Journalists (Northern California), as well as a national and regional Edward M. Murrow Award for the collaborative reporting projects “Dangerous Air” and “Graying California.” Before joining KQED, Farida worked as a producer at Radio Bilingüe, a national public radio network. Farida earned her master’s degree in journalism from Stanford University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f9f022d4e2609741874222a1e9d41f48fea74011aa7c615eef91d9a50c944ebe?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "FaridaJhabvala",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/faridajhabvala/",
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Farida Jhabvala Romero | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f9f022d4e2609741874222a1e9d41f48fea74011aa7c615eef91d9a50c944ebe?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f9f022d4e2609741874222a1e9d41f48fea74011aa7c615eef91d9a50c944ebe?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/fjhabvala"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_program_political-breakdown": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33544",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33544",
"score": 15.531818
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Political Breakdown Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33561,
"slug": "political-breakdown",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 44
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?program=political-breakdown",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 44
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_11964329": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11964329",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11964329",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1697160301000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1697160301,
"format": "video",
"title": "Nancy Pelosi on Israel and the House Speaker Fight",
"headTitle": "Nancy Pelosi on Israel and the House Speaker Fight | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joins Scott and Marisa at KQED Live to talk about the Israel-Hamas war and the Republican scramble to find a new speaker of the House of Representatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, everybody. From KQED Public Radio. This is Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos. Today on The Breakdown. House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi joins us here at KQED to talk about everything happening in the world right now, including the war between Hamas and Israel and the problems House Republicans are having electing a new speaker.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, in fact, those problems are continuing. And Marisa, we originally had this conversation with Nancy Pelosi scheduled for Tuesday of this week, and we had to move it to Monday because she had to be back in D.C. And of course, we this was all set up months ago. We had no idea everything that was being happening, including the war between Israel and Hamas. So it was you know, there was so much to talk about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, as somebody who I’m pretty sure never takes a day off, even Pelosi seemed like it had been quite a week or two. Right. I mean, you know, there was obviously Senator Dianne Feinstein’s death, the kind of, you know.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Emotional impact.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> The outpouring and and all of the things that I think Pelosi wanted to be and felt that she should be out around that the appointment of Lafond, a butler to the Senate and then, as you said, this kind of mess in the House which you know just it was interesting watching her because she’s definitely in her element in a way now that she was not when she was the leader of the Democrats.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, she’s like kind of, you know, unshackled in a way. I mean, she she she’s cut loose from having to represent the entire caucus. And now she’s from, quote unquote, liberal San Francisco. She can really speak her mind. Unplugged is the word I was looking for, which she very much is plugged in to everything. And it does. You do wonder like, yes, Hakeem Jeffries is the, you know, the minority leader. But you’ve got to think they’re on the phone quite regularly talking about strategy and you know how to play certain things. And, you know, the caucus came out very united against helping Kevin McCarthy hold on to the speakership. Seven Republicans kind of bailed on him. And, you know, it was interesting to hear her thoughts on why didn’t Democrats help McCarthy. And, you know.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But you say she’s unplugged, but she’s still Pelosi. And like, let’s be clear, you will hear this again and again. Pelosi says what Pelosi wants. Like there is no there are many times where she just sort of like heard our question and kind of came back to it later. But she definitely is very much in sort of charge of her faculties when it comes to talking to the press and knowing when she would and wouldn’t make news, for example, when we pushed her on. Look, you know, at the time it was a real contest between Jim Jordan, who is more of a sort of MAGA extremist Republican, and Scalise, who is also, I think in past years would have been considered a pretty hard right guy, but in these days is more of an establishment Republican. And, you know, I think she made very clear she did not want to weigh in on that, saying why would I help them or hurt them by saying I like them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> As if, you know, saying something nice might actually hurt them, although I think it’s proves pretty clear reading between the lines. She does not think much of Jim Jordan, who founded the Freedom Caucus, but I’m sure she’s not buddies with Scalise, although they are both Italian. So she didn’t bite on that one. But yeah, so, you know, all these things that I guess are going to emerge. And then of course, you know, McCarthy has kind of offered himself up if they can’t, you know, get the votes for either Scalise or Jordan, I can’t really see that happening. But who knows they right now, because clearly, although they you know, Scalise had a plurality of the votes or a majority of the caucus, he’s nowhere near the 218 he needs to win.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I will say to one of the things you also hear, I think Pelosi has really mastered this ability. That’s very rare, I think, for women in politics to both be very confident without sounding sort of braggadocious. And so it would point, you know, you you say you’ve called yourself a master legislator. She’s like, yeah, I have. You know, and then there’s a couple other funny moments like that when, you know, we’ll get to this next week because we actually have a second episode with her out of this. But asking her about the future of her congressional seat, her daughter Christine, who’s rumored to want to run, was sitting in the front row, kind of kind of egging her on the whole time. So, you know, I just think she again, it was clear that she was sort of enjoying some of the politics of what’s going on, not having to be in the driver’s seat.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, she came dressed in like a lavender pantsuit, looked very comfortable. And so, as you said, we’re going to be hearing in just a moment the first or not not exactly the first half, but half of the interview. And then next week she’ll be talking more about the fans of Butler, the thoughts about that Senate seat, which we still don’t know at this as we speak right here today, whether Lafond, about who’s going to run for the six year full term. We also talked a little bit about Paul Pelosi, her husband, who was with her at the memorial for Senator Feinstein. And, you know, she said a little bit more about him that than she has in the past. And I think they said we’ll hear more of that next week. And then a little revelation. Thanks to Mark Barabak from the L.A. Times. We asked her about her apparent fondness for the Grateful Dead.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, just color me shocked. If there was a band, I would have thought that Nancy Pelosi would be in and too, it would not have been the Grateful Dead. But she’s been to many concerts, including the allegedly final one, you know, one of many Final Dead concerts she’s referring to.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Bobbie, I was like, that’s got to be Bob Weir, she says, Oh, yeah, Bobby.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Bobby. Bobby. And, you know, gave a shout out to U2 as well and did clear up a rumor. Apparently Paul Pelosi does not actually do her shopping.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that was that’s been out there in the ether Ethernet Internet for a long time. But yeah, she does her own shopping. Yeah. So we’re going to hear all of that. And then, as you said, tune in next week for the second part of this conversation. She is, you know, 83 years old, but, you know, very clearly in charge of, you know, the sort of the environment that she excels in, which is the arena.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Brushed them off.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, she did, But she said she’s ready to go. All right. We’re going to take a short break. And when we come back, we’re going to hear our conversation with Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Please welcome Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. All right. Well, what are we going to talk about tonight?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> What has changed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We know that you and Mayor Breed yesterday, I believe, were at a rally in support of Israel. Obviously, there’s a terrible war that’s underway right now. Hundreds have died on both sides. And we’re wondering, first of all, just since this is at the top of the news, what do you see as the most short term implications of all this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, thank you. It’s wonderful to be with you. Thank you all for being here. Change of date. That’s always well, that’s the life I lead. When we accepted the invitation and so honored to be with all of you, whenever that was, what, two weeks ago or something longer?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Months.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Months. Okay, well, just in the last ten days, we lost our dear Diane. The invasion of Israel. So horrible. And, of course, the confusion on the other side of the aisle. This yesterday we were at a temple. It was a big outpouring of support for Israel. Also, I was able to say that Mike Pappas was there, head of interfaith council, and he said that that Christians, Catholics, everyone, every religion was mourning for the Israelis and sending their support. This is something so tragic. You know, there are many injustices in the world, one thing and another. But there is no excuse for the barbaric violence that was we saw happen in Israel. I had a friend whose niece, Grande, whose niece was killed, her husband was killed and the infant baby were killed there. Little children, other little children, they had hid in a closet and they were later rescued. But what the barbaric nature of that, there’s no it’s. Some people say it’s unforgivable. I don’t like to think that anything is unforgivable, but it’s very close to unforgivable that that would that that would happen. So when you say where do we go from here? We always have to see everything as an opportunity to see how we can bring people together. This is really hard. And we’re hard because we don’t. We’ll see what happens in the end. The violence that appears to be continuing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> When you say it’s hard, what do you mean?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, when human life is taken in a way. Now, again, are there countries that are at war? I have I feel the same way about Putin in Ukraine, kidnaping children, killing and raping women. I don’t know if the rape is happening in Israel, but that’s what’s happening in Ukraine. There’s no that’s using. Violence against civilians as a weapon of war. Don’t be a coward. You won’t go for war. Fight militarily. That’s not something we love. But don’t take it out on the children, the moms, the families here, they kidnap. You can see them kidnaping little children. 80 year old grandmoms. All the rest. So it’s it’s very hard. To overcome that kind of loss in your family and your community and in your country. But let us pray. Let us pray that some good can come of it. They were observing the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, and people said that some good things that was not a good thing, a war. But actually, there was a path to some. Better situation following that. Maybe something will come here, but it’s very hard to see and it will take a while, I think.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you think? I mean, we’ve seen President Biden call this Israeli government the most extreme ever, President Netanyahu. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been, you know, working on dismantling the court and I think, you know, isolating the settlements. I want, you know, the Gaza Strip. Does all of that complicate the way that you and others in Washington can respond to this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> No, I mean, I’m not a big fan of the current government of of Israel. And all that you say is of concern, but none of it. None of it makes any difference when when military force comes in and starts killing civilians and kidnaping and the rest. So I don’t see any relationship between the two.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you think that we’re hearing tonight that there may be a move to link Ukraine aid and Israeli aid and Congress? What do you think about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, I think that we have to do both. So I’m okay with linking it, but we don’t really even have a functioning House of Representatives and hopefully when we do, that will be facilitated. But the there is strong support for Ukraine aid in the Congress of the United States, bipartisan House and Senate. There’s strong support for Israeli assistance to Israel. One of the issues that we’re all facing is the fate of Americans in Israel. Some are visitors, some are by Israeli America. They have dual citizenship. All of them are of concern to us, not any more than any other Israeli. But nonetheless, that’s our responsibility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, let’s shift to what’s happening in Washington and or not happening. I know you’re as we said, you’re going back tomorrow. There’s one way or the other. There will eventually be a speaker.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Yes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> How are you and your caucus thinking about that vote?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, just so you know, I mean, I think it’s important to note because the things people say, I think, no, that’s not how it works. You have an election. Somebody wins. The party that wins, selects, nominates and chooses the Speaker of the House. So when I see on TV, they say the Democrats and eight Republicans took down the speaker. No Republicans took down their speaker. That I met when I all the times I was elected leader or speaker for 20 years. I never had one Republican vote, nor would it have been appropriate. It’s up to the party to elect its leaders, whether it’s the speaker or the leader. It’s up to the party. So I haven’t the I would be the last person to act ask about what’s going on in the Republican caucus or second last. But right up there. Right up there. And I just hope and pray that they can come to their own unity. But it is it’s very difficult because people said, well, why didn’t you all vote for them and this or that? We said, well, if that isn’t our role, it’s up to them to select.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As I said, now we have our major differences. For example, right now we’re having a fight with them about they want to cut 30% from the food for which women, infant children for for food, for food. Out of the mouths of babes are, what, 80%, 70 to 80% for low income heating. Assistance for mostly poor seniors in our country. The list goes on and on about the things that they want to cut on. They have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all of that on the table. Why? Because they’re concerned about the budget. They’re concerned about feeding babies. But they weren’t concerned when they get a $2 trillion tax cut to the richest people in America. And it was. But with interest to the national debt, $2 trillion, 83% of it went to the top 1%, not creating any vitality in our. But they didn’t worry about the national debt or the budget then.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, what I’m hearing you say is that this is not Democrats responsibility. And it seems, from what we’ve heard, that speaker, former Speaker McCarthy, didn’t offer Democrats anything. Didn’t come to the table to talk to try to save his speakership. So, I mean, what do you want to see done and what what does it matter? Like, what can the Congress not do in this moment because there’s no leadership?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, we want him to have a speakership because the only thing the acting speaker can do is have a speaker’s election. Nothing else.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Didn’t take away the office, though. Didn’t they also take away your office?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> I don’t care about that. What I care about is taking food out of the mouths of babies. I had a ceremonial office where I had visitors, heads of state, heads of parliaments, and all the rest come through. If I don’t have to do that, I could spend more time on politics. But nonetheless, we won’t go into that. That’s the most important thing we can do, is win the next election absolutely, positively. But yeah, that, that housekeeping stuff, that’s nothing but the but the what is something is that they have to be able to come together and I hope that they will come together, elect their speaker so that we can have the debate, that the American people can see the difference and try to find our common ground, if that’s possible. But we have our major differences. There’s just no question about that. One thing we do, two things we do agree on. One is the assistance to Israel in this terrible situation. And we we’ve had bipartisan, bicameral House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, support for Israel all the time and then, of course, for the Ukraine as well. These are urgent matters. We need a speaker so that we can get that done.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I can understand, you know, you want to wade into the Republican politics, but you have worked with, you know, a number of Republican, right, as Speaker Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, who cried at the opening of the unveiling of your portrait. You know, Ryan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Cried for a lot of reasons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> But so I guess what I’m getting at is there seem to be two, maybe three, if you include McCarthy, because he’s left the door open to coming back. But Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan, founder of the Freedom Caucus, you must have a do you see a difference between them or. McCarthy The three of them, yeah.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Especially given Jordan sort of involvement in pushing the big lie about the 2020 election and filing lawsuits to undermine it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Well, here’s the thing. I’ve been there a long time and I have worked with Republicans and quite frankly, coming from San Francisco, I mean, it’s of all the titles, speaker, leader, whip and all that, nothing is more exciting than to walk on the floor and say, I speak for the people of San Francisco. That’s that’s really exciting. And so we have our. Priorities. And we are the city of Saint Francis and we have our values and the rest. So when you go on the floor, you welcome the vitality of differences of opinion and debate, and hopefully you can find your common ground. And that has always been the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I’ve admired so many of the Republicans that I have worked with in an earlier day, whether it was for the environment, whether it was for human rights, So many issues where we work together and I’m appropriator and or appropriations, it’s very as far as bipartisanship as it could get. And same thing on intelligence, my other committee, a very bipartisan up until a certain point when Newt Gingrich came along, he really he it was a a different day. He would give them things to put in their phone, in their car when they go home saying call them traitors, call them treasonous. This was a that was the crossing the threshold. As bad as he was, these guys just put him in the shade because they it really is a different breed of cat. So the idea that you would go in. I always say to my own constituents, we don’t have 218. San Francisco, we’re trying, but we don’t have to wait in even when we have to. 18 Democrats, there’s differences of opinion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And again, our founders, our founders, they did this beautiful thing with the democracy. Fortunately, they made our founding document, the Constitution. Amendable so that we could correct some of the compromises that they had to make. But it was about a democracy where you had the differences of opinion and you debated and you didn’t resent a difference of opinion. You welcomed it. Hope to win the debate, at least get a high split on your side for whatever solution there would be there. But nonetheless, win some, lose some, but always respect the people who sent each person there from their own district that I want them to respect my constituents. So. So. But this is very different now.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So if you’re looking at a choice between a Representative Scalise and a Representative Jordan from a Democratic perspective, does it matter which one is in charge of the House?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> That’s up to the Republicans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Does it matter to you?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> That’s up to the Republicans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right, all right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> If I told you who I preferred it wouldn’t help that person. If I told you what I thought of Jim Jordan, that would be awful too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Do you have an unnamed preference? Do you have an unnamed preference?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Hakeem Jeffries. I’m determined he’s going to be speaker as soon as possible.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Let me ask about this impact on Democratic politics. Do you think the chaos happening right now McCarthy is ousting? The infighting among Republicans will help Democrats pick up seats, particularly all those purple districts in California that you guys are targeting?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well in California. Thanks to all of you in California. When I first started to say, people said to me, you should run for leadership. I didn’t have any intent, but actually I didn’t intend to run for Congress. But people said, you have to run. You have to run. Same thing for leadership. We had 26 Democrats and 26 Republicans. And I said I was former chair of the party. I know how to do this. You just give me California. And that night, 2000, we had went from 26, 26 to 31, 21, picked up ten seats in California. And then we grew and we grew. And that was really largely how Democrats took back the House of Representatives. Thank you, California. But we also won in other parts of the country as well. The. We’re not about. Oh, they’re terrible. It’s about what we present to the American people. This is about a vision. Why? Why are we there? We’re there for a better.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This president has been great. Joe Biden has been so visionary in how we advance an economy that is from the bottom up and the middle in, not from the trickle down. 83% going to the top 1% in all of our legislation, whether it was a recovery, the rescue package, whether it was a bipartisan infrastructure bill, we had 13 Republican votes, but it was bipartisan. The CHIPS Act, the PACT Act for our veterans, whether it was the I.R.A., the biggest investment in protecting our environment, saving our planet, and the history not only of our country, but of any country. All of it, though, he had with a system of equity, justice, inclusion, so that many more people could have access to the education, to the training, to the apprenticeships, to the decision making as to what infrastructure they would like to see in their communities and their percentages. He had a big percentage that should go to. Completely neighborhood oriented, community oriented decision making in that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So this is about a vision of inclusion for our country. It’s about knowledge of the issues that he has been there even longer than I have, much longer than I have. He’s been there, knows the issues. He’s strategic. He’s a legislator, a senator, vice president, a president of United, a vision, knowledge, judgment, strategic thinker. But that’s all up here and in his heart, the most empathetic president you could find. He knows and he cares. And that’s what we have to get across because it makes a difference to our democracy. So this whole class is the backbone of our democracy. I believe the middle class has a union label on it. And and our democratic priorities make it stronger. But nonetheless, this president and our Democratic Congress have a lot to be proud of about. We had a vision. We had a plan. Vision without a plan, a fantasy. Vision with a plan: victory.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You described the president more or less as a mensch. You described a former speaker with a different M word, moron.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> I didn’t say he was a moron. I said what he said was moronic. That was different.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Where do you, as somebody who has you are have been called the, you know, the most effective speaker in modern times. You yourself have called yourself a master legislator.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Where do you think —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> I have.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Where do you think the former speaker fell short?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Which one are we talking about? Oh, yeah, the leading one. Well, I think that as I said at the time, it was becoming the incredibly shrinking speakership. The speakership has awesome responsibility and therefore power, but you have to be able to use it in a way that builds consensus so that you have sustainability for what you do. But in order to win the speakership, he gave away so many of his, shall we say, avenues to success, including saying that one person could vacate the chair. And that that was most unfortunate because, well, maybe there were eight. Maybe we said just make it more or make it the speaker, the majority leader or the majority whip or somebody who has brings more heft to it, that that’s just process the other hand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There was a thought that in our on our side of the aisle, he didn’t keep his word in terms of the president, agreeing with the president on the debt ceiling. This we’re going to proceed in this way. We’re going to build our appropriations bills around this amount. And then he walked away from it. He said, what’s his name was responsible for January 6th, and then he kissed his ring. You know, that kind of stuff. You know, how can you rely on somebody? Because your word is the most important thing that you have in all of that. And situations change. But then you have to acknowledge that. And I think that I say this carefully, but I think that people didn’t trust his word.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And that’s it for this edition of Political Breakdown, where a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Our engineers today are Christopher Beal and Jim Bennett. Special thanks as well to the KQED live team, including Ryan Davis and Lance Gardner. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. We’ll see you next time, everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 4910,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 74
},
"modified": 1700874488,
"excerpt": "The former speaker of the House of Representatives is interviewed at KQED Live",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The former speaker of the House of Representatives is interviewed at KQED Live",
"title": "Nancy Pelosi on Israel and the House Speaker Fight | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Nancy Pelosi on Israel and the House Speaker Fight",
"datePublished": "2023-10-12T18:25:01-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:08:08-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "nancy-pelosi-on-israel-and-the-house-speaker-fight",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC8362339824.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11964329/nancy-pelosi-on-israel-and-the-house-speaker-fight",
"audioDuration": 1786000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joins Scott and Marisa at KQED Live to talk about the Israel-Hamas war and the Republican scramble to find a new speaker of the House of Representatives.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, everybody. From KQED Public Radio. This is Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos. Today on The Breakdown. House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi joins us here at KQED to talk about everything happening in the world right now, including the war between Hamas and Israel and the problems House Republicans are having electing a new speaker.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, in fact, those problems are continuing. And Marisa, we originally had this conversation with Nancy Pelosi scheduled for Tuesday of this week, and we had to move it to Monday because she had to be back in D.C. And of course, we this was all set up months ago. We had no idea everything that was being happening, including the war between Israel and Hamas. So it was you know, there was so much to talk about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, as somebody who I’m pretty sure never takes a day off, even Pelosi seemed like it had been quite a week or two. Right. I mean, you know, there was obviously Senator Dianne Feinstein’s death, the kind of, you know.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Emotional impact.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> The outpouring and and all of the things that I think Pelosi wanted to be and felt that she should be out around that the appointment of Lafond, a butler to the Senate and then, as you said, this kind of mess in the House which you know just it was interesting watching her because she’s definitely in her element in a way now that she was not when she was the leader of the Democrats.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, she’s like kind of, you know, unshackled in a way. I mean, she she she’s cut loose from having to represent the entire caucus. And now she’s from, quote unquote, liberal San Francisco. She can really speak her mind. Unplugged is the word I was looking for, which she very much is plugged in to everything. And it does. You do wonder like, yes, Hakeem Jeffries is the, you know, the minority leader. But you’ve got to think they’re on the phone quite regularly talking about strategy and you know how to play certain things. And, you know, the caucus came out very united against helping Kevin McCarthy hold on to the speakership. Seven Republicans kind of bailed on him. And, you know, it was interesting to hear her thoughts on why didn’t Democrats help McCarthy. And, you know.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But you say she’s unplugged, but she’s still Pelosi. And like, let’s be clear, you will hear this again and again. Pelosi says what Pelosi wants. Like there is no there are many times where she just sort of like heard our question and kind of came back to it later. But she definitely is very much in sort of charge of her faculties when it comes to talking to the press and knowing when she would and wouldn’t make news, for example, when we pushed her on. Look, you know, at the time it was a real contest between Jim Jordan, who is more of a sort of MAGA extremist Republican, and Scalise, who is also, I think in past years would have been considered a pretty hard right guy, but in these days is more of an establishment Republican. And, you know, I think she made very clear she did not want to weigh in on that, saying why would I help them or hurt them by saying I like them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> As if, you know, saying something nice might actually hurt them, although I think it’s proves pretty clear reading between the lines. She does not think much of Jim Jordan, who founded the Freedom Caucus, but I’m sure she’s not buddies with Scalise, although they are both Italian. So she didn’t bite on that one. But yeah, so, you know, all these things that I guess are going to emerge. And then of course, you know, McCarthy has kind of offered himself up if they can’t, you know, get the votes for either Scalise or Jordan, I can’t really see that happening. But who knows they right now, because clearly, although they you know, Scalise had a plurality of the votes or a majority of the caucus, he’s nowhere near the 218 he needs to win.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I will say to one of the things you also hear, I think Pelosi has really mastered this ability. That’s very rare, I think, for women in politics to both be very confident without sounding sort of braggadocious. And so it would point, you know, you you say you’ve called yourself a master legislator. She’s like, yeah, I have. You know, and then there’s a couple other funny moments like that when, you know, we’ll get to this next week because we actually have a second episode with her out of this. But asking her about the future of her congressional seat, her daughter Christine, who’s rumored to want to run, was sitting in the front row, kind of kind of egging her on the whole time. So, you know, I just think she again, it was clear that she was sort of enjoying some of the politics of what’s going on, not having to be in the driver’s seat.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, she came dressed in like a lavender pantsuit, looked very comfortable. And so, as you said, we’re going to be hearing in just a moment the first or not not exactly the first half, but half of the interview. And then next week she’ll be talking more about the fans of Butler, the thoughts about that Senate seat, which we still don’t know at this as we speak right here today, whether Lafond, about who’s going to run for the six year full term. We also talked a little bit about Paul Pelosi, her husband, who was with her at the memorial for Senator Feinstein. And, you know, she said a little bit more about him that than she has in the past. And I think they said we’ll hear more of that next week. And then a little revelation. Thanks to Mark Barabak from the L.A. Times. We asked her about her apparent fondness for the Grateful Dead.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, just color me shocked. If there was a band, I would have thought that Nancy Pelosi would be in and too, it would not have been the Grateful Dead. But she’s been to many concerts, including the allegedly final one, you know, one of many Final Dead concerts she’s referring to.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Bobbie, I was like, that’s got to be Bob Weir, she says, Oh, yeah, Bobby.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Bobby. Bobby. And, you know, gave a shout out to U2 as well and did clear up a rumor. Apparently Paul Pelosi does not actually do her shopping.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that was that’s been out there in the ether Ethernet Internet for a long time. But yeah, she does her own shopping. Yeah. So we’re going to hear all of that. And then, as you said, tune in next week for the second part of this conversation. She is, you know, 83 years old, but, you know, very clearly in charge of, you know, the sort of the environment that she excels in, which is the arena.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Brushed them off.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, she did, But she said she’s ready to go. All right. We’re going to take a short break. And when we come back, we’re going to hear our conversation with Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Please welcome Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. All right. Well, what are we going to talk about tonight?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> What has changed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We know that you and Mayor Breed yesterday, I believe, were at a rally in support of Israel. Obviously, there’s a terrible war that’s underway right now. Hundreds have died on both sides. And we’re wondering, first of all, just since this is at the top of the news, what do you see as the most short term implications of all this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, thank you. It’s wonderful to be with you. Thank you all for being here. Change of date. That’s always well, that’s the life I lead. When we accepted the invitation and so honored to be with all of you, whenever that was, what, two weeks ago or something longer?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Months.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Months. Okay, well, just in the last ten days, we lost our dear Diane. The invasion of Israel. So horrible. And, of course, the confusion on the other side of the aisle. This yesterday we were at a temple. It was a big outpouring of support for Israel. Also, I was able to say that Mike Pappas was there, head of interfaith council, and he said that that Christians, Catholics, everyone, every religion was mourning for the Israelis and sending their support. This is something so tragic. You know, there are many injustices in the world, one thing and another. But there is no excuse for the barbaric violence that was we saw happen in Israel. I had a friend whose niece, Grande, whose niece was killed, her husband was killed and the infant baby were killed there. Little children, other little children, they had hid in a closet and they were later rescued. But what the barbaric nature of that, there’s no it’s. Some people say it’s unforgivable. I don’t like to think that anything is unforgivable, but it’s very close to unforgivable that that would that that would happen. So when you say where do we go from here? We always have to see everything as an opportunity to see how we can bring people together. This is really hard. And we’re hard because we don’t. We’ll see what happens in the end. The violence that appears to be continuing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> When you say it’s hard, what do you mean?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, when human life is taken in a way. Now, again, are there countries that are at war? I have I feel the same way about Putin in Ukraine, kidnaping children, killing and raping women. I don’t know if the rape is happening in Israel, but that’s what’s happening in Ukraine. There’s no that’s using. Violence against civilians as a weapon of war. Don’t be a coward. You won’t go for war. Fight militarily. That’s not something we love. But don’t take it out on the children, the moms, the families here, they kidnap. You can see them kidnaping little children. 80 year old grandmoms. All the rest. So it’s it’s very hard. To overcome that kind of loss in your family and your community and in your country. But let us pray. Let us pray that some good can come of it. They were observing the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, and people said that some good things that was not a good thing, a war. But actually, there was a path to some. Better situation following that. Maybe something will come here, but it’s very hard to see and it will take a while, I think.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you think? I mean, we’ve seen President Biden call this Israeli government the most extreme ever, President Netanyahu. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been, you know, working on dismantling the court and I think, you know, isolating the settlements. I want, you know, the Gaza Strip. Does all of that complicate the way that you and others in Washington can respond to this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> No, I mean, I’m not a big fan of the current government of of Israel. And all that you say is of concern, but none of it. None of it makes any difference when when military force comes in and starts killing civilians and kidnaping and the rest. So I don’t see any relationship between the two.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you think that we’re hearing tonight that there may be a move to link Ukraine aid and Israeli aid and Congress? What do you think about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, I think that we have to do both. So I’m okay with linking it, but we don’t really even have a functioning House of Representatives and hopefully when we do, that will be facilitated. But the there is strong support for Ukraine aid in the Congress of the United States, bipartisan House and Senate. There’s strong support for Israeli assistance to Israel. One of the issues that we’re all facing is the fate of Americans in Israel. Some are visitors, some are by Israeli America. They have dual citizenship. All of them are of concern to us, not any more than any other Israeli. But nonetheless, that’s our responsibility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, let’s shift to what’s happening in Washington and or not happening. I know you’re as we said, you’re going back tomorrow. There’s one way or the other. There will eventually be a speaker.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Yes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> How are you and your caucus thinking about that vote?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, just so you know, I mean, I think it’s important to note because the things people say, I think, no, that’s not how it works. You have an election. Somebody wins. The party that wins, selects, nominates and chooses the Speaker of the House. So when I see on TV, they say the Democrats and eight Republicans took down the speaker. No Republicans took down their speaker. That I met when I all the times I was elected leader or speaker for 20 years. I never had one Republican vote, nor would it have been appropriate. It’s up to the party to elect its leaders, whether it’s the speaker or the leader. It’s up to the party. So I haven’t the I would be the last person to act ask about what’s going on in the Republican caucus or second last. But right up there. Right up there. And I just hope and pray that they can come to their own unity. But it is it’s very difficult because people said, well, why didn’t you all vote for them and this or that? We said, well, if that isn’t our role, it’s up to them to select.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As I said, now we have our major differences. For example, right now we’re having a fight with them about they want to cut 30% from the food for which women, infant children for for food, for food. Out of the mouths of babes are, what, 80%, 70 to 80% for low income heating. Assistance for mostly poor seniors in our country. The list goes on and on about the things that they want to cut on. They have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all of that on the table. Why? Because they’re concerned about the budget. They’re concerned about feeding babies. But they weren’t concerned when they get a $2 trillion tax cut to the richest people in America. And it was. But with interest to the national debt, $2 trillion, 83% of it went to the top 1%, not creating any vitality in our. But they didn’t worry about the national debt or the budget then.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, what I’m hearing you say is that this is not Democrats responsibility. And it seems, from what we’ve heard, that speaker, former Speaker McCarthy, didn’t offer Democrats anything. Didn’t come to the table to talk to try to save his speakership. So, I mean, what do you want to see done and what what does it matter? Like, what can the Congress not do in this moment because there’s no leadership?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well, we want him to have a speakership because the only thing the acting speaker can do is have a speaker’s election. Nothing else.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Didn’t take away the office, though. Didn’t they also take away your office?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> I don’t care about that. What I care about is taking food out of the mouths of babies. I had a ceremonial office where I had visitors, heads of state, heads of parliaments, and all the rest come through. If I don’t have to do that, I could spend more time on politics. But nonetheless, we won’t go into that. That’s the most important thing we can do, is win the next election absolutely, positively. But yeah, that, that housekeeping stuff, that’s nothing but the but the what is something is that they have to be able to come together and I hope that they will come together, elect their speaker so that we can have the debate, that the American people can see the difference and try to find our common ground, if that’s possible. But we have our major differences. There’s just no question about that. One thing we do, two things we do agree on. One is the assistance to Israel in this terrible situation. And we we’ve had bipartisan, bicameral House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, support for Israel all the time and then, of course, for the Ukraine as well. These are urgent matters. We need a speaker so that we can get that done.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I can understand, you know, you want to wade into the Republican politics, but you have worked with, you know, a number of Republican, right, as Speaker Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, who cried at the opening of the unveiling of your portrait. You know, Ryan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Cried for a lot of reasons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> But so I guess what I’m getting at is there seem to be two, maybe three, if you include McCarthy, because he’s left the door open to coming back. But Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan, founder of the Freedom Caucus, you must have a do you see a difference between them or. McCarthy The three of them, yeah.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Especially given Jordan sort of involvement in pushing the big lie about the 2020 election and filing lawsuits to undermine it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Well, here’s the thing. I’ve been there a long time and I have worked with Republicans and quite frankly, coming from San Francisco, I mean, it’s of all the titles, speaker, leader, whip and all that, nothing is more exciting than to walk on the floor and say, I speak for the people of San Francisco. That’s that’s really exciting. And so we have our. Priorities. And we are the city of Saint Francis and we have our values and the rest. So when you go on the floor, you welcome the vitality of differences of opinion and debate, and hopefully you can find your common ground. And that has always been the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I’ve admired so many of the Republicans that I have worked with in an earlier day, whether it was for the environment, whether it was for human rights, So many issues where we work together and I’m appropriator and or appropriations, it’s very as far as bipartisanship as it could get. And same thing on intelligence, my other committee, a very bipartisan up until a certain point when Newt Gingrich came along, he really he it was a a different day. He would give them things to put in their phone, in their car when they go home saying call them traitors, call them treasonous. This was a that was the crossing the threshold. As bad as he was, these guys just put him in the shade because they it really is a different breed of cat. So the idea that you would go in. I always say to my own constituents, we don’t have 218. San Francisco, we’re trying, but we don’t have to wait in even when we have to. 18 Democrats, there’s differences of opinion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And again, our founders, our founders, they did this beautiful thing with the democracy. Fortunately, they made our founding document, the Constitution. Amendable so that we could correct some of the compromises that they had to make. But it was about a democracy where you had the differences of opinion and you debated and you didn’t resent a difference of opinion. You welcomed it. Hope to win the debate, at least get a high split on your side for whatever solution there would be there. But nonetheless, win some, lose some, but always respect the people who sent each person there from their own district that I want them to respect my constituents. So. So. But this is very different now.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So if you’re looking at a choice between a Representative Scalise and a Representative Jordan from a Democratic perspective, does it matter which one is in charge of the House?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> That’s up to the Republicans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Does it matter to you?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> That’s up to the Republicans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right, all right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> If I told you who I preferred it wouldn’t help that person. If I told you what I thought of Jim Jordan, that would be awful too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Do you have an unnamed preference? Do you have an unnamed preference?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Hakeem Jeffries. I’m determined he’s going to be speaker as soon as possible.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Let me ask about this impact on Democratic politics. Do you think the chaos happening right now McCarthy is ousting? The infighting among Republicans will help Democrats pick up seats, particularly all those purple districts in California that you guys are targeting?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Well in California. Thanks to all of you in California. When I first started to say, people said to me, you should run for leadership. I didn’t have any intent, but actually I didn’t intend to run for Congress. But people said, you have to run. You have to run. Same thing for leadership. We had 26 Democrats and 26 Republicans. And I said I was former chair of the party. I know how to do this. You just give me California. And that night, 2000, we had went from 26, 26 to 31, 21, picked up ten seats in California. And then we grew and we grew. And that was really largely how Democrats took back the House of Representatives. Thank you, California. But we also won in other parts of the country as well. The. We’re not about. Oh, they’re terrible. It’s about what we present to the American people. This is about a vision. Why? Why are we there? We’re there for a better.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This president has been great. Joe Biden has been so visionary in how we advance an economy that is from the bottom up and the middle in, not from the trickle down. 83% going to the top 1% in all of our legislation, whether it was a recovery, the rescue package, whether it was a bipartisan infrastructure bill, we had 13 Republican votes, but it was bipartisan. The CHIPS Act, the PACT Act for our veterans, whether it was the I.R.A., the biggest investment in protecting our environment, saving our planet, and the history not only of our country, but of any country. All of it, though, he had with a system of equity, justice, inclusion, so that many more people could have access to the education, to the training, to the apprenticeships, to the decision making as to what infrastructure they would like to see in their communities and their percentages. He had a big percentage that should go to. Completely neighborhood oriented, community oriented decision making in that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So this is about a vision of inclusion for our country. It’s about knowledge of the issues that he has been there even longer than I have, much longer than I have. He’s been there, knows the issues. He’s strategic. He’s a legislator, a senator, vice president, a president of United, a vision, knowledge, judgment, strategic thinker. But that’s all up here and in his heart, the most empathetic president you could find. He knows and he cares. And that’s what we have to get across because it makes a difference to our democracy. So this whole class is the backbone of our democracy. I believe the middle class has a union label on it. And and our democratic priorities make it stronger. But nonetheless, this president and our Democratic Congress have a lot to be proud of about. We had a vision. We had a plan. Vision without a plan, a fantasy. Vision with a plan: victory.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You described the president more or less as a mensch. You described a former speaker with a different M word, moron.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> I didn’t say he was a moron. I said what he said was moronic. That was different.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Where do you, as somebody who has you are have been called the, you know, the most effective speaker in modern times. You yourself have called yourself a master legislator.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Where do you think —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> I have.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Where do you think the former speaker fell short?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> Which one are we talking about? Oh, yeah, the leading one. Well, I think that as I said at the time, it was becoming the incredibly shrinking speakership. The speakership has awesome responsibility and therefore power, but you have to be able to use it in a way that builds consensus so that you have sustainability for what you do. But in order to win the speakership, he gave away so many of his, shall we say, avenues to success, including saying that one person could vacate the chair. And that that was most unfortunate because, well, maybe there were eight. Maybe we said just make it more or make it the speaker, the majority leader or the majority whip or somebody who has brings more heft to it, that that’s just process the other hand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There was a thought that in our on our side of the aisle, he didn’t keep his word in terms of the president, agreeing with the president on the debt ceiling. This we’re going to proceed in this way. We’re going to build our appropriations bills around this amount. And then he walked away from it. He said, what’s his name was responsible for January 6th, and then he kissed his ring. You know, that kind of stuff. You know, how can you rely on somebody? Because your word is the most important thing that you have in all of that. And situations change. But then you have to acknowledge that. And I think that I say this carefully, but I think that people didn’t trust his word.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And that’s it for this edition of Political Breakdown, where a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Our engineers today are Christopher Beal and Jim Bennett. Special thanks as well to the KQED live team, including Ryan Davis and Lance Gardner. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. We’ll see you next time, everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11964329/nancy-pelosi-on-israel-and-the-house-speaker-fight",
"authors": [
"255",
"3239"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_177",
"news_22235"
],
"featImg": "news_11964496",
"label": "source_news_11964329"
},
"news_11963640": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11963640",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11963640",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1696555548000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1696555548,
"format": "audio",
"title": "Remembering Feinstein and California's Senate Question",
"headTitle": "Remembering Feinstein and California’s Senate Question | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Marisa and Scott recap Dianne Feinstein’s memorial service and hear Nancy Pelosi’s memories of the former mayor and senator. Guy Marzorati joins to discuss Feinstein’s legacy, California’s new Senator Laphonza Butler and the choice facing Butler over whether to run for a full term.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey, everyone. From KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer, and today on the Breakdown: recapping a whirlwind week in California politics. We’ll reflect on the legacy of Senator Dianne Feinstein after her memorial service Thursday at San Francisco City Hall.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And we’ll talk about the woman appointed to succeed Feinstein, Laphonza Butler, and the biggest question in California politics, will Butler run for a full term in the Senate? Joining us to talk all about this is the indispensable third member of our Political Breakdown team, Guy Marzorati. Hey Guy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> What a week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What a week, I’m done, can we call mercy now on the political news? Well, today we all just got back. Scott and I were there at the public memorial service for Senator Feinstein, where Vice President Kamala Harris, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mayor London Breed and Feinstein’s granddaughter all spoke along with Chuck Schumer, leader of the Senate. But I mean, that’s one of the things that struck me was like looking at that stage full of women, right. Who all are incredibly powerful and thinking back on Feinstein. And Scott, on Wednesday, you were there as her body lay in state at city hall. I know there was a lot of just normal members of the public there and some dignitaries.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it was. The city hall opened at around nine and I was over there bright and early. And Speaker Pelosi, Speaker Emerita Pelosi got there about one word about 9:00. And she came and met with Catherine Feinstein, the late senator’s daughter, and she was very choked up. I have to say, I went to talk to her before she goes, let’s wait until I sign the condolence book and go in and see the coffin and pay my respects, say a prayer. She was very, you know, close to Dianne Feinstein. It was very emotional for her. She had flown on the president’s plane, Air Force One, with the senator’s body and Catherine Feinstein. So it was all very, very emotional. Afterwards, we did get a chance to talk about what the senator meant to her and to the city.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> I was thinking of the words during the night about how gentle she was, but how strategic she was. And so, she knew her purpose and she would not be, she did things on her own terms, but she always did them with gentleness. She loved flowers. She loved to grow them. She loved to paint them. She loved to show them off. And so she had she was very, very special person.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> There are people who don’t remember her as mayor because they’re too young or they just moved here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> They weren’t even born.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> What are your thoughts? Like what should what should people know about her tenure as mayor and what she left behind?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> What they should know about her is that as mayor of the city, she came in under the most gruesome circumstances, and yet she gave comfort and strength to the city at that difficult time. But the story I love to tell is that when we wanted to, I was chair of the California party, we wanted to have the Democratic convention come to San Francisco. So we went to see her and she said, ‘Well, I can’t do that if it takes any resources away from Laguna Honda.’ She was always thinking about those in most need, and we said, no, that it wouldn’t do that. But let us prove that to you. As you know, the stories of her just giving mouth to mouth resuscitation to somebody on the street that she didn’t even know. But that’s what she was. She was generous, generous, completely generous. So, again, she and I were not on the same place on the political spectrum. So we had our fun with it all. But from a personal standpoint, my family loved her. We were neighbors, we were friends and my daughter, Nancy. We always tease and said, if Diane and I were running against each other, we were sure Nancy Carinne would vote for Dianne Feinstein.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What great tape, Scott. You know, I think the former speaker talked there about her living on her own terms, dying on her own terms. She voted the day that she passed away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> To keep the government running.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> To keep the government open.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Walked onto the Senate floor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Walked on and we were talking to one of her staff members today who said, you know, she was frail and she did need a wheelchair to get around. But she insisted that we would wheel her up to the door and she would walk into that chamber by herself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I thought Pelosi, out of the speakers today at the memorial, was the most personal of all the elected officials. I mean, she even mentioned to you, Scott, they they had their political differences. They weren’t the same kind of Democrats, something like the Iraq war. You look at different votes that they had. But she had a personal connection to Feinstein that I don’t think maybe many of the others on stage did. She talked about her own, you know, daughter in that tape with you. Her daughter Nancy, took care of Feinstein kind of towards the very end of her life in Washington.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And I think, you know, the just the fact that she could look out the window of her house and see the hydrangeas in Senator Feinstein’s garden, you know, they obviously were you know, they were neighbors. They were friends. They were, you know, kind of quasi-family. They were political family at the very least. And, you know, one of the other things I liked about the speeches today was her granddaughter, the late senator’s granddaughter, who really spoke about a softer, gentler side of her grandmother, you know, playing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Playing hide and seek, which I’m trying to imagine—\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Oh yeah, it was the stories that I think a politician running nowadays would want to lean into in their public persona. But the very kind of thing Feinstein was always reluctant to reveal about herself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right, and you know, the book that Jerry Roberts, former Chronicle reporter, the bio of her, was called Never Let Them See You Cry, because she was always strong on the outside. And yeah, to hear the stories about picking flowers in the garden and then painting them and, you know, learning how to play chess from her grandmother and all that stuff. It was really I thought it really rounded out the view we have of Dianne Feinstein.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, but there’s a reason she didn’t want people to see her cry. And it’s because that she came up in a time where that was not I mean, she was sitting in seats that women weren’t supposed to be in to begin with, Right. Starting from going to Stanford in the 50s up through even being elected on the school board. I mean, you know, we’ve heard the story of her meeting Willie Brown because she was out there with, you know, Catherine Feinstein, her daughter, in a stroller, helping protest against racist housing policies that were keeping black families like Willie Brown’s out of certain San Francisco neighborhoods. At the same time, she was a single mom at that point. Right. And, you know, the other thing that I felt was very personal was Mayor London Breed talking about her today. Breed mentioned that she was born in the 1970s and you know, really came up not knowing a world without Dianne Feinstein as the mayor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>London Breed:\u003c/strong> None of the things that she told me as an adult were ever as important. As what she showed us as children. Through times of tragedy and triumph, Dianne Feinstein showed us the meaning of San Francisco’s motto Gold in Peace, Iron in War. She showed us a world where women lead, where we lift each other up so that girls like me could follow in her footsteps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that was such a powerful statement. And I think, you know, that also goes to who London Breed is, you know, the strength and the power of her own biography and growing up in San Francisco when she did and how she did. But, you know, it occurs to me, listening to that, that all you know, we talked about the political differences that Feinstein had with Pelosi. She certainly had them with Breed and with Kamala Harris too, the vice president. I mean, Well, you know, obviously, she spoke today as well. And I think we all remember that time when right after Kamala became D.A. and there was a police officer shot and killed. And she immediately said, you know, we’re not going to seek the death penalty. And Feinstein called her out at the funeral.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> In a room full of police officers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Roomful of police officers, they cheered. And, you know, that was and that was we’ve talked about it, you know, a pivotal moment for Kamala. So, yeah, Dianne was you know, she was, Dianne Feinstein had a particular lane in politics and it was a little bit to the right of San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But you did hear today that she didn’t make it personal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. No, I think that’s true. And I think even, you know, Chuck Schumer talked about her ability to reach across the aisle on something like the assault weapons ban, but that carried forward in a lot of different policy areas. I mean, we talked about water. She was just as likely to work with Republicans in the Central Valley. In fact, Kevin McCarthy was someone that she worked with on water bills in the past. So I think that was certainly her kind of political style. I remember when you both sat down with her in 2018, the last time that she was running for reelection, she was really resistant to this idea of political styles. She didn’t want to be talked about as, Oh, I have a different style as Kamala —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> She didn’t want to be compared. I think she felt like the media was trying to pit two women against each other.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I think to her there wasn’t another style. This was the way in which you were supposed to act in the U.S. Senate. And this is, you know, the way that she viewed things had to be done.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think generationally she was just not of the digital generation. You know, she wasn’t you know, she didn’t have any … Facebooking and Tweeting, her staff did that for her. And I think she she didn’t appreciate the really the quick, she was a workhorse, you know, And I think she you know, Kamala Harris told the story today when she became sent to the you know, elected to the Senate, Feinstein handed her a glass of chardonnay wine and a binder full of her bills.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> California chardonnay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> California chardonnay, yeah she was just really, her nose to the grindstone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, Harris used a quote today, she said she was about results, not rhetoric. And I think in large part that’s why Feinstein, in her later years, was really drifting away from where not only the Democratic Party was, but just where politics are today. I think, you know, we talk about this moment where the school kids came into her office and asked her to please support the Green New Deal. And, you know, she just it was like she couldn’t believe that they had the temerity to walk into a sitting senator’s office. And I think and the you know, as you said, the digital age of politics was kind of lost on her. But kind of the pugilistic age that we’re in right now was lost on her as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> She was always trying to find common ground.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well and Chuck Schumer talked about this and I think other speakers, too, which is like she did her homework. She was a workhorse in the best sense of the word, that she wouldn’t just sort of speak out of turn. She would say, let me go read on that. And she actually would, which I don’t know, I don’t want to throw cast any aspersions here, but looking at what’s happened in the House of Representatives this week, I don’t know that all those people are like reading the the bill before they vote on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I do want to say, though, you know, I mentioned at the top that it was and I think you heard this in the mayor’s comments about what it felt like to grow up then. I mean, Nancy Pelosi, I think, made a joke about, you know, the fact that there’s little girls who said, oh, men can be a mayor, too? Right. But it was also very fitting to have this ceremony on the steps of city hall at the building where really her fate was sort of written in 1978 after the horrific murders of Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk. And, you know, looking back at everything this week as somebody who wasn’t here at the time, it’s just wild to think. I mean, just two weeks before that, over 900 people had died at the Jonestown massacre, including Congressman Leo Ryan, who was murdered basically a, you know, hit job by the leader of that cult. Her for her second husband, Bert Feinstein, had passed away earlier that year. And when we talked to her a few years ago, she said, you know, she had planned on stepping down from politics. And we asked her about that moment coming out and announcing to the world that another supervisor had murdered them. And this is what she talked about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dianne Feinstein:\u003c/strong> What happens to me is everything else blocks out except what I am doing and what I need to do. So it’s a phenomenon. I can’t explain what happens, but I can just perform. I can just keep going. And it’s not by will. I know that. But it happens that way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So powerful to hear her talk about, you know, something that you can tell decades later still felt traumatic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And Chuck Schumer today made a similar allusion to her when she was up in Lake Tahoe for one of her Tahoe summits and fractured her ankle and yet refused to seek medical help.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> She had a job to do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> She had a job to do. You know, she went through with the summit and, you know, later on got the attention that she needed. But she was tough, you know, And, you know, being like, as you said today, Guy earlier, forged in tragedy. That was actually the phrase in the TV commercial that they used when she was running for governor in 1990. And I think that I think that is part of what, how this outpouring of affection and appreciation for her that we’ve seen this week is that moment, you know, when she stood up and brought the city together, it was coming apart at the seams. And I think no one really knew what was next. You know, this is also an assassination by a former member of the board of supervisors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Who she had been mentoring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yes, friends with.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah and I think you hear that steadfastness in a quote like that from Feinstein and you realize, like why it ended like it did for her in the Senate. Like she was not someone who was going to have a life after public service or a life after politics. And I think she didn’t. It was kind of those blinders that she’s almost describing that I think ended up in a situation where the last few years of her life in the Senate were, you know, full of questions about her service and whether she’s hanging on too long. And I think it speaks to kind of the way she pursued public life and public service that led to this scenario where really towards the end, I think in a large part, played into a part of her legacy that’s going to be there, right? This last term was one of really absence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s interesting, though, because I think that, you know, in the last two years have been so difficult for her, you know, physically, mentally and a lot of criticism for not letting go sooner. And yet this week, we’ve really heard very little of that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You know, I think it’s almost like we folks got it out of the way, right? There’s the last two years have been nothing but bad news for her that I think is kind of opened the door to now, to recall —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> To recall the last four, five decades of her service and to recall the recall for five decades of her service and to think about I mean, you know, I don’t want to rush through all this, but we are going to have to take a break soon. But the things that she accomplished, not just as mayor, sort of righting the ship in this city. And, you know, not everybody agrees with her policies then, but I think there was a sense that she was a steadying force. But then also getting to the Senate and, you know, being only one of a handful of women in there and taking on gun control, the assault rifle weapons ban, you know, a decade or two later taking on the CIA with her torture report.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and, you know, and what that was about really was accountability, holding the CIA accountable. And I think what, you know, we’re in this moment now are San Francisco is, you know, being, you know, criticized all over the place on Fox News and elsewhere for the situation on the streets, exaggerated in some ways. And I think people hearken back maybe to the time she was mayor. She did hold people accountable. Department heads, she expected results. And I think that’s what people are looking for is like we’re spending all this money, what are we getting? And that was the kind of question she would ask.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> She continued, like until the end of her life —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> There’s a mattress on the street.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Holding everyone accountable. She would make that phone call, she would apparently at SFO, all of the workers there wanted to know which side of the plane she was coming in on so they can make sure the runway looked nice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So they could go on the other side.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, just push it over there. But I mean, it is. And I think it really does stand in contrast to the type of politics that we see now, especially with the former president and the rhetoric we’re seeing from him. She really deeply respected not just the institution of the Senate, but our government and our democracy. And yeah, it’s a huge loss and a life incredibly lived. Okay, we will take a short break. When we come back, we’ll look ahead to talk about California’s new senator, Laphonza Butler. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown here with the politics dream team, Guy Marzorati and Scott Shafer and now we are going to talk about what is next for California, we have a new senator. But Guy I thought we could go back and remember why Gavin Newsom, our governor, was in kind of a pickle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Kind of boxed himself in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Tell us about the genesis of this appointment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah I mean, so this goes back to 2021 when Newsom was facing a recall in the early part of the year and made this pledge on the heels of having appointed Alex Padilla to fill Kamala Harris’ Senate seat that he would appoint a black woman should Feinstein’s seat open up. And it got it was controversial in the short term for people saying, well, you shouldn’t be jumping to any conclusions about DiFi. But in the you know, year since, it’s it has kind of box demand and it really culminated in this appearance on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago where he was talking to Chuck Todd about this potential appointment. And he used the phrase interim appointment. And Chuck Todd followed up by saying, you know, you would not appoint anyone. And Newsom finished the sentence saying that would run again. And so somehow, in the weeks since, Newsom changed his mind and we can talk about maybe what played into that. But even before he announced Butler’s pick on Sunday, his office had already signaled whoever the name that comes out was going to be. They don’t have to make any promise as far as not running in 2024.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think the anger that was generated in 2021, you know, he appointed Padilla to take Kamala Harris seat and that left the Senate with no black women. Now, Padilla was historic in his own right. He’s the first Latino senator from California. But it did seem that Newsom was making that pledge to help himself in a recall.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> There might have a been a recall happening.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> There was a recall happening. And I’m sure Dianne Feinstein didn’t appreciate that, you know, being basically, you know, you’re kind of speculating about her having to leave the office one way or the other. And then, yeah, he walked it back and said he didn’t want to interfere by putting Barbara Lee in that seat, which is what a lot of women of color, black women in particular, were pushing for and so was Barbara Lee. Barbara Lee said, I will take that job.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We should say, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of Oakland who is running to replace Dianne Feinstein.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> What’s curious is, on the merits, it didn’t entirely make sense to say you can only be an interim appointment. He never told Alex Padilla, you can only be an interim appointment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What is in from a point of putting somebody in a group that has historically struggled to win elections in a seat, it’s to give them the power of incumbency.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But what changed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, I think Barbara Lee is maybe a little bit to his left. I mean, let’s say whoever he appoints, whoever it is, is going to be a reflection of him. And if they do things that aren’t out of sync with his own politics, he’s going to have to answer to that, in some ways. He may run for president one day. And I think Barbara Lee is probably a little more liberal than he would like.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And probably older.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And also Nancy Pelosi. Let’s face it, Nancy Pelosi has endorsed Adam Schiff, and I think she probably leaned on him not to upset that apple cart —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Or to appoint Schiff. And I think, I do think some of this was new, some sort of exercising some independence from a lot of the party establishment who and it wasn’t like they were all lining up behind one person. But to have Pelosi out there publicly endorsing Schiff, to have Barbara Lee and her allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, calling on him very specifically and very angrily after he demurred. You know, I think that some of it was that. What changed, Guy? I don’t know exactly. One of my guesses is, might be that they talked to a lot of black women who said, I don’t want an interim job. I’m not going to give up the job I have now to take that and for what?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Knowing it would only be for thirteen months.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It’s condescending to to say, well, she’s free to run. Like, of course she’s free to run. She can make that choice on her own. With or without his permission.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I got to say, and I and I think and I don’t think from what she said and from what I’ve heard, I don’t think that these conversations were directly with Butler before he offered her the position. But I do think once her name came up and he and his people in his inner circle started thinking about her, I mean, maybe that was what changed, was that they looked at her and said, we don’t want to put those handcuffs on her, right? And she is, I think, really a smart choice. I mean, not only is she very well respected in the California political community for her time leading SEIU and really her, I think, excellent negotiating skills at the table on things like the $15 minimum wage. She’s also our first openly lesbian senator. She is 44 years old and she has been running Emily’s List, a fund raising group. Right. So even though she does not have any household sort of name recognition, I think her ability to build it is probably way far ahead of a lot of potential candidates.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It is. But, you know, the time is getting short. You know, she’s got to if she’s going to run, she’s got to have a statement in by November. You know, I think the absolute deadline is December 8th. Yeah, it’s hard to put together a statewide operation. And then, you know, the governor would have to endorse her, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> She’ll have the name Senator next to her name on the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> A lot of earned media.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> A lot of earned media. And I think, you know, for better or worse, the conversation I think, is now going to shift towards Barbara Lee. This was a loss for her not to get this appointment. I also think she’s really going to be splitting a lot of the supporters that Barbara Lee has, both voters and also kind of financial backers. I mean, talking to folks like California Donor Table, Aimee Allison, they’re not upset about Laphonza Butler’s appointment. They’re praising that and saying, oh, you know, we’re trying to figure out a situation in which we can support both of these candidates going forward. That’s tough and I could really see a situation where as we get closer to December, there starts to be calls for Barbara Lee, like, do you want to stay in this race if you’re still going to be in single digits? Because look, as the way the field is right now, it’s not going to take a whole lot to get into the top two primary. I know every Democrat is going to be wearing a Steve Garvey jersey from now until March, because if he gets in the race, I think that’s the only situation where you might have two Democrats. And I think, you know, for Butler, get to what? 20%, 25% of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It’ll be super interesting. I’m sure we’ll see a poll in the next few weeks with her name in it. Just to just get a sense of like who you know, I think we all it’s easy for us. You know, we’re steeped in this stuff to think that everyone is you know, I got a cup of coffee today and I was wearing a black suit because of the funeral, the memorial. And the woman said, oh, you’re wearing you got all dressed up. I said, Yeah, I’m going to a funeral. She goes, Oh, who died? I said, Dianne Feinstein. She looked at me like, Who is that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Oh, my Lyft driver knew exactly who Dianne Feinstein was, but I had not heard that she had passed away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So it’s just a reality check.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah well we’ve been steeped in this and haven’t had a day off in two weeks. But I do think when you think about Laphonza Butler, I mean, part of this is, you know, going to be her job to introduce herself to people. And to your point, Scott, we know her already. She has been, as I said, the head for almost a decade. She led the largest labor union in the state, which really is sort of one of the biggest advocates for not just working people, but working people of color and women in particular. And, you know, when we spoke to Laphonza Butler back in 2019 here in Political Breakdown, she talked about kind of what led her to that work. And this is part of that conversation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Laphonza Butler:\u003c/strong> My mom worked really hard. My dad died when I was 16 years old. He had heart disease. By the time he passed away, he’d had six heart attacks. He had a stroke, he had had a crow, he’d had a heart transplant, got a new heart from an 18 year old who died in a motorcycle accident. So my life was really lived through the eyes of a caregiver. My mother was my father’s caregiver in the last years of of his life and having to understand what families everyday go through when it when it comes to issues like health care.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, I think when you listen to the fans of Butler, you get an authenticity about her. She’s not like the other people in the Senate, you know, which is sometimes criticized for being, you know, male Yale and pale. She comes from Mississippi, Magnolia, Mississippi. She went to Jackson State University. Her mom was a caregiver. Her dad died. She’s got real life experience. And that was also steeped in the labor movement, organizing nurses and janitors. And it’s it really is a completely different perspective that most U.S. senators have. And we’ll see if she runs or not. But I do think there’s an excitement about it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I think we have to think about we’re all here doing the political kind of chess game for her. This is a deeply personal decision. And she’s talked about this in the very few interviews she gave that she values her privacy. She is a black lesbian woman with a daughter. Her daughter was not at the swearing in. I wonder if that was not on purpose. I mean, this is not a time in America where you want to put your family out there to be vulnerable when you are part of those minorities. And so I do think that beyond the sort of political calculations, she’s going to be thinking hard about what kind what public service means to her and if this is worth what is was acknowledged today for Dianne Feinstein, it is something that your family is giving up as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It must be hard just speaking of giving up, like give up a job, give up the job of being a United States senator when you had a taste of it for, you know, a few weeks, months.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> It is just such a unique I mean, I can’t think of anyone else who has the legislative experience Laphonza Butler has, who’s not a politician.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Who’s never run.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> More legislative experience. You could argue that half the lawmakers in Sacramento in terms of actually negotiating at the table and being in the mix and not just sort of taking a bill from an outside group and running it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> From what I heard today at the memorial service, she was definitely working the crowd looking like a candidate, you know, shaking hands, which Adam Schiff was as well. We saw him out there, too. But, yeah, I mean, this is new for her. It’s a new role. But, you know. It’s a different kind of like it’s a different kind of organizing. She’s been an organizer and that’s what campaigns are about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And so we don’t we know she worked for in tech for a little bit. We won’t gloss over that. There’s plenty of time to talk about that. I’m sure we’ll get a response from listeners if we don’t mention that, but just a minute left, guys. But we got to acknowledge the talk about political earthquakes. Kevin McCarthy is out as speaker. It is chaos in the House in Washington. We, you know, are seeing just I think I mean, talk of former President Trump becoming the next speaker. I mean, it’s wild. 30 seconds, Guy. What are you watching for?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I’m watching for the vulnerable House Republicans in California who have stood in line with Kevin McCarthy on some really conservative votes over the last nine months now might be going free range.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And also with a lot less fundraising behind them, because McCarthy was, you know, had a huge haul of money for them to help prop them up. It’s a presidential year that could be more vulnerable anyway. So I think a lot of them are kind of nervous. And, you know, there’s fury on the Republican side. There were seven Republicans that voted to get rid of him and all the Democrats. And so we’re going to be talking to Nancy Pelosi next week. And it’ll be interesting to hear what she has to say. They took her hideaway office away. There’s usually a courtesy given to former speakers. So, yeah, it’s it is dysfunction junction back there in Washington for sure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right. We’re going to leave it there. Dianne Feinstein would not be happy to see it. I know that. That’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. We’re a production of KQED Public Radio. Thanks to Guy Marzorati as always, for joining us. Before we go, we do want to let folks know that our on stage interview with Congresswoman Pelosi is now Monday instead of Tuesday because she’s going to be back in D.C. so the House can maybe pick a new speaker.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, so we’ll be lots to talk to her about. We’re going to be talking with her about that and many other things that if you were planning to join us in person or watch online, you can visit KQED.org/live for more information. For today, our engineer is Christopher Beale, I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 6321,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 98
},
"modified": 1700874494,
"excerpt": "Will Laphonza Butler run for a full term in 2024? ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Will Laphonza Butler run for a full term in 2024? ",
"title": "Remembering Feinstein and California's Senate Question | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Remembering Feinstein and California's Senate Question",
"datePublished": "2023-10-05T18:25:48-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:08:14-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "remembering-feinstein-and-californias-senate-question",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC6214578681.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11963640/remembering-feinstein-and-californias-senate-question",
"audioDuration": 1817000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Marisa and Scott recap Dianne Feinstein’s memorial service and hear Nancy Pelosi’s memories of the former mayor and senator. Guy Marzorati joins to discuss Feinstein’s legacy, California’s new Senator Laphonza Butler and the choice facing Butler over whether to run for a full term.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey, everyone. From KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer, and today on the Breakdown: recapping a whirlwind week in California politics. We’ll reflect on the legacy of Senator Dianne Feinstein after her memorial service Thursday at San Francisco City Hall.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And we’ll talk about the woman appointed to succeed Feinstein, Laphonza Butler, and the biggest question in California politics, will Butler run for a full term in the Senate? Joining us to talk all about this is the indispensable third member of our Political Breakdown team, Guy Marzorati. Hey Guy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> What a week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What a week, I’m done, can we call mercy now on the political news? Well, today we all just got back. Scott and I were there at the public memorial service for Senator Feinstein, where Vice President Kamala Harris, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mayor London Breed and Feinstein’s granddaughter all spoke along with Chuck Schumer, leader of the Senate. But I mean, that’s one of the things that struck me was like looking at that stage full of women, right. Who all are incredibly powerful and thinking back on Feinstein. And Scott, on Wednesday, you were there as her body lay in state at city hall. I know there was a lot of just normal members of the public there and some dignitaries.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it was. The city hall opened at around nine and I was over there bright and early. And Speaker Pelosi, Speaker Emerita Pelosi got there about one word about 9:00. And she came and met with Catherine Feinstein, the late senator’s daughter, and she was very choked up. I have to say, I went to talk to her before she goes, let’s wait until I sign the condolence book and go in and see the coffin and pay my respects, say a prayer. She was very, you know, close to Dianne Feinstein. It was very emotional for her. She had flown on the president’s plane, Air Force One, with the senator’s body and Catherine Feinstein. So it was all very, very emotional. Afterwards, we did get a chance to talk about what the senator meant to her and to the city.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> I was thinking of the words during the night about how gentle she was, but how strategic she was. And so, she knew her purpose and she would not be, she did things on her own terms, but she always did them with gentleness. She loved flowers. She loved to grow them. She loved to paint them. She loved to show them off. And so she had she was very, very special person.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> There are people who don’t remember her as mayor because they’re too young or they just moved here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> They weren’t even born.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> What are your thoughts? Like what should what should people know about her tenure as mayor and what she left behind?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Nancy Pelosi:\u003c/strong> What they should know about her is that as mayor of the city, she came in under the most gruesome circumstances, and yet she gave comfort and strength to the city at that difficult time. But the story I love to tell is that when we wanted to, I was chair of the California party, we wanted to have the Democratic convention come to San Francisco. So we went to see her and she said, ‘Well, I can’t do that if it takes any resources away from Laguna Honda.’ She was always thinking about those in most need, and we said, no, that it wouldn’t do that. But let us prove that to you. As you know, the stories of her just giving mouth to mouth resuscitation to somebody on the street that she didn’t even know. But that’s what she was. She was generous, generous, completely generous. So, again, she and I were not on the same place on the political spectrum. So we had our fun with it all. But from a personal standpoint, my family loved her. We were neighbors, we were friends and my daughter, Nancy. We always tease and said, if Diane and I were running against each other, we were sure Nancy Carinne would vote for Dianne Feinstein.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What great tape, Scott. You know, I think the former speaker talked there about her living on her own terms, dying on her own terms. She voted the day that she passed away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> To keep the government running.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> To keep the government open.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Walked onto the Senate floor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Walked on and we were talking to one of her staff members today who said, you know, she was frail and she did need a wheelchair to get around. But she insisted that we would wheel her up to the door and she would walk into that chamber by herself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I thought Pelosi, out of the speakers today at the memorial, was the most personal of all the elected officials. I mean, she even mentioned to you, Scott, they they had their political differences. They weren’t the same kind of Democrats, something like the Iraq war. You look at different votes that they had. But she had a personal connection to Feinstein that I don’t think maybe many of the others on stage did. She talked about her own, you know, daughter in that tape with you. Her daughter Nancy, took care of Feinstein kind of towards the very end of her life in Washington.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And I think, you know, the just the fact that she could look out the window of her house and see the hydrangeas in Senator Feinstein’s garden, you know, they obviously were you know, they were neighbors. They were friends. They were, you know, kind of quasi-family. They were political family at the very least. And, you know, one of the other things I liked about the speeches today was her granddaughter, the late senator’s granddaughter, who really spoke about a softer, gentler side of her grandmother, you know, playing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Playing hide and seek, which I’m trying to imagine—\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Oh yeah, it was the stories that I think a politician running nowadays would want to lean into in their public persona. But the very kind of thing Feinstein was always reluctant to reveal about herself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right, and you know, the book that Jerry Roberts, former Chronicle reporter, the bio of her, was called Never Let Them See You Cry, because she was always strong on the outside. And yeah, to hear the stories about picking flowers in the garden and then painting them and, you know, learning how to play chess from her grandmother and all that stuff. It was really I thought it really rounded out the view we have of Dianne Feinstein.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, but there’s a reason she didn’t want people to see her cry. And it’s because that she came up in a time where that was not I mean, she was sitting in seats that women weren’t supposed to be in to begin with, Right. Starting from going to Stanford in the 50s up through even being elected on the school board. I mean, you know, we’ve heard the story of her meeting Willie Brown because she was out there with, you know, Catherine Feinstein, her daughter, in a stroller, helping protest against racist housing policies that were keeping black families like Willie Brown’s out of certain San Francisco neighborhoods. At the same time, she was a single mom at that point. Right. And, you know, the other thing that I felt was very personal was Mayor London Breed talking about her today. Breed mentioned that she was born in the 1970s and you know, really came up not knowing a world without Dianne Feinstein as the mayor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>London Breed:\u003c/strong> None of the things that she told me as an adult were ever as important. As what she showed us as children. Through times of tragedy and triumph, Dianne Feinstein showed us the meaning of San Francisco’s motto Gold in Peace, Iron in War. She showed us a world where women lead, where we lift each other up so that girls like me could follow in her footsteps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that was such a powerful statement. And I think, you know, that also goes to who London Breed is, you know, the strength and the power of her own biography and growing up in San Francisco when she did and how she did. But, you know, it occurs to me, listening to that, that all you know, we talked about the political differences that Feinstein had with Pelosi. She certainly had them with Breed and with Kamala Harris too, the vice president. I mean, Well, you know, obviously, she spoke today as well. And I think we all remember that time when right after Kamala became D.A. and there was a police officer shot and killed. And she immediately said, you know, we’re not going to seek the death penalty. And Feinstein called her out at the funeral.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> In a room full of police officers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Roomful of police officers, they cheered. And, you know, that was and that was we’ve talked about it, you know, a pivotal moment for Kamala. So, yeah, Dianne was you know, she was, Dianne Feinstein had a particular lane in politics and it was a little bit to the right of San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But you did hear today that she didn’t make it personal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. No, I think that’s true. And I think even, you know, Chuck Schumer talked about her ability to reach across the aisle on something like the assault weapons ban, but that carried forward in a lot of different policy areas. I mean, we talked about water. She was just as likely to work with Republicans in the Central Valley. In fact, Kevin McCarthy was someone that she worked with on water bills in the past. So I think that was certainly her kind of political style. I remember when you both sat down with her in 2018, the last time that she was running for reelection, she was really resistant to this idea of political styles. She didn’t want to be talked about as, Oh, I have a different style as Kamala —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> She didn’t want to be compared. I think she felt like the media was trying to pit two women against each other.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I think to her there wasn’t another style. This was the way in which you were supposed to act in the U.S. Senate. And this is, you know, the way that she viewed things had to be done.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think generationally she was just not of the digital generation. You know, she wasn’t you know, she didn’t have any … Facebooking and Tweeting, her staff did that for her. And I think she she didn’t appreciate the really the quick, she was a workhorse, you know, And I think she you know, Kamala Harris told the story today when she became sent to the you know, elected to the Senate, Feinstein handed her a glass of chardonnay wine and a binder full of her bills.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> California chardonnay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> California chardonnay, yeah she was just really, her nose to the grindstone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, Harris used a quote today, she said she was about results, not rhetoric. And I think in large part that’s why Feinstein, in her later years, was really drifting away from where not only the Democratic Party was, but just where politics are today. I think, you know, we talk about this moment where the school kids came into her office and asked her to please support the Green New Deal. And, you know, she just it was like she couldn’t believe that they had the temerity to walk into a sitting senator’s office. And I think and the you know, as you said, the digital age of politics was kind of lost on her. But kind of the pugilistic age that we’re in right now was lost on her as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> She was always trying to find common ground.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well and Chuck Schumer talked about this and I think other speakers, too, which is like she did her homework. She was a workhorse in the best sense of the word, that she wouldn’t just sort of speak out of turn. She would say, let me go read on that. And she actually would, which I don’t know, I don’t want to throw cast any aspersions here, but looking at what’s happened in the House of Representatives this week, I don’t know that all those people are like reading the the bill before they vote on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I do want to say, though, you know, I mentioned at the top that it was and I think you heard this in the mayor’s comments about what it felt like to grow up then. I mean, Nancy Pelosi, I think, made a joke about, you know, the fact that there’s little girls who said, oh, men can be a mayor, too? Right. But it was also very fitting to have this ceremony on the steps of city hall at the building where really her fate was sort of written in 1978 after the horrific murders of Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk. And, you know, looking back at everything this week as somebody who wasn’t here at the time, it’s just wild to think. I mean, just two weeks before that, over 900 people had died at the Jonestown massacre, including Congressman Leo Ryan, who was murdered basically a, you know, hit job by the leader of that cult. Her for her second husband, Bert Feinstein, had passed away earlier that year. And when we talked to her a few years ago, she said, you know, she had planned on stepping down from politics. And we asked her about that moment coming out and announcing to the world that another supervisor had murdered them. And this is what she talked about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dianne Feinstein:\u003c/strong> What happens to me is everything else blocks out except what I am doing and what I need to do. So it’s a phenomenon. I can’t explain what happens, but I can just perform. I can just keep going. And it’s not by will. I know that. But it happens that way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So powerful to hear her talk about, you know, something that you can tell decades later still felt traumatic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And Chuck Schumer today made a similar allusion to her when she was up in Lake Tahoe for one of her Tahoe summits and fractured her ankle and yet refused to seek medical help.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> She had a job to do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> She had a job to do. You know, she went through with the summit and, you know, later on got the attention that she needed. But she was tough, you know, And, you know, being like, as you said today, Guy earlier, forged in tragedy. That was actually the phrase in the TV commercial that they used when she was running for governor in 1990. And I think that I think that is part of what, how this outpouring of affection and appreciation for her that we’ve seen this week is that moment, you know, when she stood up and brought the city together, it was coming apart at the seams. And I think no one really knew what was next. You know, this is also an assassination by a former member of the board of supervisors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Who she had been mentoring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yes, friends with.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah and I think you hear that steadfastness in a quote like that from Feinstein and you realize, like why it ended like it did for her in the Senate. Like she was not someone who was going to have a life after public service or a life after politics. And I think she didn’t. It was kind of those blinders that she’s almost describing that I think ended up in a situation where the last few years of her life in the Senate were, you know, full of questions about her service and whether she’s hanging on too long. And I think it speaks to kind of the way she pursued public life and public service that led to this scenario where really towards the end, I think in a large part, played into a part of her legacy that’s going to be there, right? This last term was one of really absence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s interesting, though, because I think that, you know, in the last two years have been so difficult for her, you know, physically, mentally and a lot of criticism for not letting go sooner. And yet this week, we’ve really heard very little of that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You know, I think it’s almost like we folks got it out of the way, right? There’s the last two years have been nothing but bad news for her that I think is kind of opened the door to now, to recall —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> To recall the last four, five decades of her service and to recall the recall for five decades of her service and to think about I mean, you know, I don’t want to rush through all this, but we are going to have to take a break soon. But the things that she accomplished, not just as mayor, sort of righting the ship in this city. And, you know, not everybody agrees with her policies then, but I think there was a sense that she was a steadying force. But then also getting to the Senate and, you know, being only one of a handful of women in there and taking on gun control, the assault rifle weapons ban, you know, a decade or two later taking on the CIA with her torture report.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and, you know, and what that was about really was accountability, holding the CIA accountable. And I think what, you know, we’re in this moment now are San Francisco is, you know, being, you know, criticized all over the place on Fox News and elsewhere for the situation on the streets, exaggerated in some ways. And I think people hearken back maybe to the time she was mayor. She did hold people accountable. Department heads, she expected results. And I think that’s what people are looking for is like we’re spending all this money, what are we getting? And that was the kind of question she would ask.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> She continued, like until the end of her life —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> There’s a mattress on the street.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Holding everyone accountable. She would make that phone call, she would apparently at SFO, all of the workers there wanted to know which side of the plane she was coming in on so they can make sure the runway looked nice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So they could go on the other side.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, just push it over there. But I mean, it is. And I think it really does stand in contrast to the type of politics that we see now, especially with the former president and the rhetoric we’re seeing from him. She really deeply respected not just the institution of the Senate, but our government and our democracy. And yeah, it’s a huge loss and a life incredibly lived. Okay, we will take a short break. When we come back, we’ll look ahead to talk about California’s new senator, Laphonza Butler. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown here with the politics dream team, Guy Marzorati and Scott Shafer and now we are going to talk about what is next for California, we have a new senator. But Guy I thought we could go back and remember why Gavin Newsom, our governor, was in kind of a pickle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Kind of boxed himself in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Tell us about the genesis of this appointment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah I mean, so this goes back to 2021 when Newsom was facing a recall in the early part of the year and made this pledge on the heels of having appointed Alex Padilla to fill Kamala Harris’ Senate seat that he would appoint a black woman should Feinstein’s seat open up. And it got it was controversial in the short term for people saying, well, you shouldn’t be jumping to any conclusions about DiFi. But in the you know, year since, it’s it has kind of box demand and it really culminated in this appearance on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago where he was talking to Chuck Todd about this potential appointment. And he used the phrase interim appointment. And Chuck Todd followed up by saying, you know, you would not appoint anyone. And Newsom finished the sentence saying that would run again. And so somehow, in the weeks since, Newsom changed his mind and we can talk about maybe what played into that. But even before he announced Butler’s pick on Sunday, his office had already signaled whoever the name that comes out was going to be. They don’t have to make any promise as far as not running in 2024.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think the anger that was generated in 2021, you know, he appointed Padilla to take Kamala Harris seat and that left the Senate with no black women. Now, Padilla was historic in his own right. He’s the first Latino senator from California. But it did seem that Newsom was making that pledge to help himself in a recall.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> There might have a been a recall happening.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> There was a recall happening. And I’m sure Dianne Feinstein didn’t appreciate that, you know, being basically, you know, you’re kind of speculating about her having to leave the office one way or the other. And then, yeah, he walked it back and said he didn’t want to interfere by putting Barbara Lee in that seat, which is what a lot of women of color, black women in particular, were pushing for and so was Barbara Lee. Barbara Lee said, I will take that job.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We should say, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of Oakland who is running to replace Dianne Feinstein.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> What’s curious is, on the merits, it didn’t entirely make sense to say you can only be an interim appointment. He never told Alex Padilla, you can only be an interim appointment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What is in from a point of putting somebody in a group that has historically struggled to win elections in a seat, it’s to give them the power of incumbency.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But what changed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, I think Barbara Lee is maybe a little bit to his left. I mean, let’s say whoever he appoints, whoever it is, is going to be a reflection of him. And if they do things that aren’t out of sync with his own politics, he’s going to have to answer to that, in some ways. He may run for president one day. And I think Barbara Lee is probably a little more liberal than he would like.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And probably older.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And also Nancy Pelosi. Let’s face it, Nancy Pelosi has endorsed Adam Schiff, and I think she probably leaned on him not to upset that apple cart —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Or to appoint Schiff. And I think, I do think some of this was new, some sort of exercising some independence from a lot of the party establishment who and it wasn’t like they were all lining up behind one person. But to have Pelosi out there publicly endorsing Schiff, to have Barbara Lee and her allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, calling on him very specifically and very angrily after he demurred. You know, I think that some of it was that. What changed, Guy? I don’t know exactly. One of my guesses is, might be that they talked to a lot of black women who said, I don’t want an interim job. I’m not going to give up the job I have now to take that and for what?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Knowing it would only be for thirteen months.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It’s condescending to to say, well, she’s free to run. Like, of course she’s free to run. She can make that choice on her own. With or without his permission.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I got to say, and I and I think and I don’t think from what she said and from what I’ve heard, I don’t think that these conversations were directly with Butler before he offered her the position. But I do think once her name came up and he and his people in his inner circle started thinking about her, I mean, maybe that was what changed, was that they looked at her and said, we don’t want to put those handcuffs on her, right? And she is, I think, really a smart choice. I mean, not only is she very well respected in the California political community for her time leading SEIU and really her, I think, excellent negotiating skills at the table on things like the $15 minimum wage. She’s also our first openly lesbian senator. She is 44 years old and she has been running Emily’s List, a fund raising group. Right. So even though she does not have any household sort of name recognition, I think her ability to build it is probably way far ahead of a lot of potential candidates.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It is. But, you know, the time is getting short. You know, she’s got to if she’s going to run, she’s got to have a statement in by November. You know, I think the absolute deadline is December 8th. Yeah, it’s hard to put together a statewide operation. And then, you know, the governor would have to endorse her, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> She’ll have the name Senator next to her name on the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> A lot of earned media.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> A lot of earned media. And I think, you know, for better or worse, the conversation I think, is now going to shift towards Barbara Lee. This was a loss for her not to get this appointment. I also think she’s really going to be splitting a lot of the supporters that Barbara Lee has, both voters and also kind of financial backers. I mean, talking to folks like California Donor Table, Aimee Allison, they’re not upset about Laphonza Butler’s appointment. They’re praising that and saying, oh, you know, we’re trying to figure out a situation in which we can support both of these candidates going forward. That’s tough and I could really see a situation where as we get closer to December, there starts to be calls for Barbara Lee, like, do you want to stay in this race if you’re still going to be in single digits? Because look, as the way the field is right now, it’s not going to take a whole lot to get into the top two primary. I know every Democrat is going to be wearing a Steve Garvey jersey from now until March, because if he gets in the race, I think that’s the only situation where you might have two Democrats. And I think, you know, for Butler, get to what? 20%, 25% of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It’ll be super interesting. I’m sure we’ll see a poll in the next few weeks with her name in it. Just to just get a sense of like who you know, I think we all it’s easy for us. You know, we’re steeped in this stuff to think that everyone is you know, I got a cup of coffee today and I was wearing a black suit because of the funeral, the memorial. And the woman said, oh, you’re wearing you got all dressed up. I said, Yeah, I’m going to a funeral. She goes, Oh, who died? I said, Dianne Feinstein. She looked at me like, Who is that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Oh, my Lyft driver knew exactly who Dianne Feinstein was, but I had not heard that she had passed away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So it’s just a reality check.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah well we’ve been steeped in this and haven’t had a day off in two weeks. But I do think when you think about Laphonza Butler, I mean, part of this is, you know, going to be her job to introduce herself to people. And to your point, Scott, we know her already. She has been, as I said, the head for almost a decade. She led the largest labor union in the state, which really is sort of one of the biggest advocates for not just working people, but working people of color and women in particular. And, you know, when we spoke to Laphonza Butler back in 2019 here in Political Breakdown, she talked about kind of what led her to that work. And this is part of that conversation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Laphonza Butler:\u003c/strong> My mom worked really hard. My dad died when I was 16 years old. He had heart disease. By the time he passed away, he’d had six heart attacks. He had a stroke, he had had a crow, he’d had a heart transplant, got a new heart from an 18 year old who died in a motorcycle accident. So my life was really lived through the eyes of a caregiver. My mother was my father’s caregiver in the last years of of his life and having to understand what families everyday go through when it when it comes to issues like health care.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, I think when you listen to the fans of Butler, you get an authenticity about her. She’s not like the other people in the Senate, you know, which is sometimes criticized for being, you know, male Yale and pale. She comes from Mississippi, Magnolia, Mississippi. She went to Jackson State University. Her mom was a caregiver. Her dad died. She’s got real life experience. And that was also steeped in the labor movement, organizing nurses and janitors. And it’s it really is a completely different perspective that most U.S. senators have. And we’ll see if she runs or not. But I do think there’s an excitement about it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I think we have to think about we’re all here doing the political kind of chess game for her. This is a deeply personal decision. And she’s talked about this in the very few interviews she gave that she values her privacy. She is a black lesbian woman with a daughter. Her daughter was not at the swearing in. I wonder if that was not on purpose. I mean, this is not a time in America where you want to put your family out there to be vulnerable when you are part of those minorities. And so I do think that beyond the sort of political calculations, she’s going to be thinking hard about what kind what public service means to her and if this is worth what is was acknowledged today for Dianne Feinstein, it is something that your family is giving up as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It must be hard just speaking of giving up, like give up a job, give up the job of being a United States senator when you had a taste of it for, you know, a few weeks, months.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> It is just such a unique I mean, I can’t think of anyone else who has the legislative experience Laphonza Butler has, who’s not a politician.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Who’s never run.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> More legislative experience. You could argue that half the lawmakers in Sacramento in terms of actually negotiating at the table and being in the mix and not just sort of taking a bill from an outside group and running it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> From what I heard today at the memorial service, she was definitely working the crowd looking like a candidate, you know, shaking hands, which Adam Schiff was as well. We saw him out there, too. But, yeah, I mean, this is new for her. It’s a new role. But, you know. It’s a different kind of like it’s a different kind of organizing. She’s been an organizer and that’s what campaigns are about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And so we don’t we know she worked for in tech for a little bit. We won’t gloss over that. There’s plenty of time to talk about that. I’m sure we’ll get a response from listeners if we don’t mention that, but just a minute left, guys. But we got to acknowledge the talk about political earthquakes. Kevin McCarthy is out as speaker. It is chaos in the House in Washington. We, you know, are seeing just I think I mean, talk of former President Trump becoming the next speaker. I mean, it’s wild. 30 seconds, Guy. What are you watching for?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I’m watching for the vulnerable House Republicans in California who have stood in line with Kevin McCarthy on some really conservative votes over the last nine months now might be going free range.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And also with a lot less fundraising behind them, because McCarthy was, you know, had a huge haul of money for them to help prop them up. It’s a presidential year that could be more vulnerable anyway. So I think a lot of them are kind of nervous. And, you know, there’s fury on the Republican side. There were seven Republicans that voted to get rid of him and all the Democrats. And so we’re going to be talking to Nancy Pelosi next week. And it’ll be interesting to hear what she has to say. They took her hideaway office away. There’s usually a courtesy given to former speakers. So, yeah, it’s it is dysfunction junction back there in Washington for sure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right. We’re going to leave it there. Dianne Feinstein would not be happy to see it. I know that. That’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. We’re a production of KQED Public Radio. Thanks to Guy Marzorati as always, for joining us. Before we go, we do want to let folks know that our on stage interview with Congresswoman Pelosi is now Monday instead of Tuesday because she’s going to be back in D.C. so the House can maybe pick a new speaker.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, so we’ll be lots to talk to her about. We’re going to be talking with her about that and many other things that if you were planning to join us in person or watch online, you can visit KQED.org/live for more information. For today, our engineer is Christopher Beale, I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11963640/remembering-feinstein-and-californias-senate-question",
"authors": [
"3239",
"255",
"227"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_274",
"news_33277",
"news_177",
"news_22235"
],
"featImg": "news_11963646",
"label": "source_news_11963640"
},
"news_11962814": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11962814",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11962814",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1695951023000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1695951023,
"format": "audio",
"title": "Matt Mahan on Zuckerberg's Advice and Homeless Housing in San José",
"headTitle": "Matt Mahan on Zuckerberg’s Advice and Homeless Housing in San José | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript. \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott and Marisa discuss the Republican presidential primary debate in California and preview this weekend’s GOP state party convention. Then, San José Mayor Matt Mahan joins to discuss his childhood in Watsonville, the career advice he got from Mark Zuckerberg and his efforts to build temporary housing for people experiencing homelessness in San José.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey everybody, from KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown, I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: And I’m Marisa Lagos. On today’s show, Matt Mahan ran for mayor of San Jose as an outsider. Now he’s very much on the inside, dealing with all the issues that big mayors are facing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Like addressing the city’s large unhoused population, balancing a budget at a time when revenues are down, and how to recover from the lingering effects of the pandemic. We’re going to talk with him about all of that, as well as growing up in Watsonville. I didn’t know that’s where he grew up. And sharing a dorm room with nobody but Mark Zuckerberg.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I don’t know if they were in the room together.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, the dorm building. They did hang out together.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And now he’s mayor, so who won that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> But let’s before we get to that, Marissa said last night at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley. Seven of the Republican candidates for president not named Donald Trump faced off for a debate, if you can call it that. It was really kind of a mud wrestling, shouting match.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> It was pretty awful. Not only is it, it does feel a little bit like, why are we even watching this, given Trump’s just ginormous lead in the polls. But you know what could happen between now and even the primaries. But yeah, it was like I thought I got excited for a moment. I was like, Oh, these candidates are actually going to go after the former president. And the only thing they really dinged him on was not being there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Donald Duck, that was a good line.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Not getting found guilty of fraud by a judge that very day. You know, it’s like it’s just like it’s a time warp. It’s very weird.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And no mention of the shutdown, which were like, now, what, 72, 48? How many hours is it? You know, no mention of that whatsoever.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But you know who talked about all of that? Governor Gavin Newsom who was randomly there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah he was in the spin room. Well he claims that the I mean I’m sure it’s true the Biden administration or the campaign asked him to go down there and be in the spin room. And then he was on with Sean Hannity, who apparently he’ll be joining November 30th for a debate with DeSantis. We’ll see if that actually happens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, interesting that Newsom told Elex Michaelson down in L.A. that essentially, like he was kind of trolling DeSantis to ask for that. And he feels like, you know, DeSantis is running for president and he’s like, why is he swinging down at me? But yeah, we’ll see. I was a little skeptical until last night that that debate would actually happen. But both of them said so on live TV. So it feels like maybe there stuck there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, that’ll be lively, but hopefully with only two of them, they won’t be constantly talking over each other and we might actually hear some stuff. But, you know, the one thing that I did find interesting in that debate was the questions from the Univision reporter, which were like so out of left field and so completely different about LGBTQ rights and gun violence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Immigration.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Immigration, DOCA. Now, of course, they didn’t answer hardly any of those questions, but the fact that they were asked on Fox Business, I thought was fantastic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it was it was a it was a weird debate. But yeah, I do think it’s fascinating seeing Newsom really come out as this like sort of top tier surrogate for Biden. You know, obviously, he’s said a million times he’s not running next year, but he’s certainly relishing this role. And I think it’s interesting that he is sort of, you know, being put out there. I think the Biden administration’s like, great, we don’t have to be at this stuff. But, you know, this weekend, Donald Trump will be appearing in California. He is speaking Friday at the GOP convention in Anaheim. I’m going to be there. And we’ll also hear from DeSantis and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy, the tech entrepreneur who really took the most punches, I think, on Wednesday night.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And Tik Tok social influencer, according to Nikki Haley Yeah. I mean, it’s you know, Trump is going to suck up a lot of the oxygen, of course. What are you going to be looking for? Because there is also, in addition to the candidates, there’s this big platform fight over abortion and same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think that this really illustrates the kind of debate within the Republican Party of like how much do we kind of go to the base and how much are do we need to widen our message, given how poorly we’ve done in a lot of these elections since 2022, around abortion, since, you know, Dobbs and all that, you know, Roe v Wade was overturned. So I’ll definitely be watching that fight, although the truth is, nobody really cares about a party platform. If you recall, the national GOP doesn’t even have one anymore. They just gave up on that. I think what’s going to be interesting is if anybody is even willing to talk about the government shutdown, I know I might have to file some stories on that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well that’s a story if they won’t.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think it might be like pulling teeth because I would be surprised if any of them actually bring it up in their remarks. And I think that, you know, a lot of the delegates will also sort of not want to talk about that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, it’s not going to look good because obviously there’s no question that this will happen because of those 20 or so Republicans in the House, the right wingers who are just aren’t going to vote for any kind of spending without huge spending cuts. So I just don’t think that’s going to happen. All right. We’re going to take a short break. Before we do, I want to tell you, we’ve got an upcoming live event here at KQED, a conversation. And I will have with Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, if you’d like to submit a question for her. We’ll tell you how to do that later in the show. All right. When we return, we’ll be joined by San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marisa Lagos. And joining us here in the studio is Matt Mahan. The former tech executive was elected mayor of San Jose last year, running as something of an outsider coming from the private sector. But he’s here to talk about running California’s third biggest city. Mayor Mahan, welcome to Political Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Thanks for coming in. Well you know, I don’t know if you’re a fan of the show, but we like to talk about people’s bios, like where you came from. And we know you were born in Watsonville or you grew up in Watsonville, which is an agricultural place. Tell us, you know, what was it like growing up there?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Sure. And believe it or not, I was actually born in San Francisco, but we moved down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> That’s why I corrected myself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah you’re right, good catch. We moved out to Watsonville when I was about a year old, and I grew up in a little farming town on the Central Coast. Strawberry capital of the world. Driscoll berries, Martinelli’s apple cider. And it was a great place as a kid. I grew up running around the creek in the orchards, but also didn’t have a ton of economic opportunity. Our local high school at a higher dropout rate than graduation rate. We had a very high unemployment rate, quite a bit of crime actually, in the nineties. And when it was time for high school, my mom encouraged me to look at other options. She had grown up in San Jose. I ended up applying to a Catholic school in San Jose called Bellarmine an all boys Jesuit school. I got in, but we couldn’t afford the tuition and they made me a great deal. They said that if I came over in the summers and worked on the maintenance crew, they would forgive my tuition.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I got to ask you, I read that and as somebody who’s not doesn’t have a lot of experience in Jesuit system, it actually struck me as kind of weird, like like you’re coming in as a more low income kid, working class kid, and you’re being told you have to work your way with these guys. And I also wonder if it could be sort of insulting to the maintenance crew. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t know. Was there anything kind of weird about that, that it made you feel more distant from, you know, the rest of your peers?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> So I will say the school has since discontinued the work study program, but I did not see it as as punitive or other-ising. I grew up out in the country, was used to being outside, using my hands, you know, would mow lawns and do little maintenance projects to earn side money growing up. So I saw it as an opportunity. I loved it. I loved Bellarmine It was it was a really strong sense of community that really believed in educating the whole person. And it opened doors that I didn’t know existed growing up in a little farming town.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And you probably had more respect for the maintenance crew and the folks doing that at the school.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> I came to campus first day. All my friends were the maintenance crew. I was working on my Spanish and I’m still in touch with some of them, actually, believe it or not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I think that school has three alumni that are were mayor, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> I believe that’s correct.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Sam Liccardo, was it McEnery, Tom McEnery, yeah I thought I read that. And your mom was a Catholic school teacher, too?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah down in Salinas. All girls Catholic school.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> She sort of encouraged you to, to get out of, out of town?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we all. We were all commuters. I mean, I think that’s the way it is in a lot of small towns is that for for economic opportunity you end up traveling. My bus ride was about 2 hours each way. I had to go over the Santa Cruz mountains every day. So it was about 4 hours a day on the bus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s rough. Well, your dad was a mail carrier. I wonder, I think in a union, I’m sure. Like, what did that impact? I mean, do you remember talking about that? Like, was politics something you talked about? Do you feel like his job and his union membership has at all impacted the way you’ve kind of viewed politics?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, absolutely. We talked about politics, religion, all those things you weren’t supposed to talk about at the dinner table. That’s what we talked about every night. I mean, we had access to health care because my dad was in a union, we were in a working class neighborhood. And my dad’s job was it was a good job. It was a job that allowed us to, even though we were pretty much paycheck to paycheck, it allowed us to get by. So certainly was part of my political consciousness. Also, just reading the local newspaper, you’ll appreciate this as folks and in the media world, I became very politically engaged by reading the Register Pajaronian down in Watsonville and then later the San Jose Mercury News. I had a lot of time on the bus and I would read the paper front page to back page.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And the Merc was an amazing paper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, it still still has a lot to recommend it. But yeah, I used to love reading the paper and trying to understand how how we can make things better.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We are going to get to your college and also to your, you know, time as mayor and the city council and all that. But I have to ask, you were growing up in Watsonville and I wonder where you were when the Loma Prieta earthquake happened because it was centered right down there in Aptos. You remember that day?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> I do, very well. I was seven years old. I have two younger sisters reached two years apart and we were home. I think the I believe the World Series was just starting. I was just getting into baseball at that age. I remember my sisters and I were sitting down coloring at the table. I think my mom had just given us a snack and gone out into the backyard. And I will never forget getting my sisters and going out to the doorway as they. Teach you to do as a kid and looking out at my mom in the backyard and literally seen the earth undulating, it was it was terrifying, but kind of amazing at the same time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I bet you pay attention to earthquake drills now that you’re mayor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Absolutely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s amazing. So you end up going to this college prep school in San Jose and then end up at Harvard. We read that you were in the same dorms as Mark Zuckerberg. So are you guys like, you know, going to like keg parties together? I mean, does that happen at Harvard? I don’t know. You’re both kind of overachievers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> We were more likely to be the guys going to grab a burrito at 10:00 at night down the street. But, yeah, I got to know Mark and many other amazing people in undergrad, very different from from where I came from, but was just a very energizing place. Everybody was, you know, had had some project they were working on. Mark’s just happened to be truly globally transformative.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And you had a chance, I think, to work with him. He could have invited you to join him and you decided not to. Any regrets about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, I think, you know, that was really actually a little bit later, interestingly. So I came back and I don’t mean to go out of order here, but after college, I spent a year in South America and then came back through a program called Teach for America. I wanted to be back home near my parents, who are who are starting to age and I was teaching at East Side San Jose and kind of figuring out what to do next. I was thinking maybe I’d go to law school and I ended up having dinner with Mark Zuckerberg and he asked me why I wanted to go to law school. I said, I want change the world. I want to make the world a better place. And he said, If you want to change the world, don’t be a lawyer. Go into tech. Build something, do something different. And so I did end up joining a startup that was one of the first applications on the Facebook platform.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I want to ask you a little bit about your time at Harvard, though, before we move on, because, I mean, you must be the guest with the most written about you as a college student that I’ve ever read. We found an old Crimson Tide article because you were really involved in student government and you were pretty outspoken about how your kind of political orthodoxy changed at Harvard, but also kind of pushing back. You know, we found this quote where you talked about how a lot of Harvard students are going to go on to these lucrative careers and kind of never do anything about the underlying structures around them. So talk about your political awakening there and what did you take away from that experience?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you know, I wrote my senior thesis on liberal arts education and this question of of why, why get college education. And I just had this feeling that there was a prescribed path for most of us at Harvard and that you were going to go be a lawyer, a doctor, a consultant, an investment banker or whatever, whatever it might be. And I just wasn’t comfortable with that. It’s why I ended up spending the year in South America and then coming back and being a teacher and frankly, bouncing around a bit in my early career because I’ve always been interested in how you can organize people to create change, create more opportunity, create a better future. And that’s probably why tech ended up appealing to me. It was because people were building new things. They were creative. They were using their imagination to ask, you know, why not? Why can’t we do something differently? And so that was something that, frankly, for me, it was a little missing at Harvard in some ways, as amazing as it was, could be a little prescribed, a little stifling. And I wanted to do something different.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So as you said, you were in South America, I think Bolivia for a while. You taught with Teach for America and then you decided to go into the private sector. You went in on an app called Causes, I think, with Sean Parker, then Brigade, which all had kind of a do-gooder democratic bent to them, fair to say. What did you learn from that experience that you think you, you know, use now either at city council or as mayor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, you know, what I thought most about during those years of building both of those platforms was really about how to apply something that we’ve done for all of human history offline, which is essentially organizing community organizing. I’d taken a class from Marshall Ganz in college, which was very impactful, and Robert Putnam, the author of Bowling Alone. And I was also thinking about community and social capital and what does it take to build capacity at the grassroots level for people to create a better future? And then had this new opportunity, this digital overlay. I ran one of the first, maybe the first political campaigns on the Facebook platform when I was in college. And so I’ve also thought about how do we create scale around participation? How do we help people to break out of this, this anomie we have in modernity, where we feel very small compared to the problems in our community. And I think the answer to that is collective action is to plug into something bigger than oneself. And technology makes that possible to scale that wasn’t before available to us. And I’ve tried to bring that directly into government. Again, not to skip ahead, but everything we’ve done both in the campaign and now governing, has been about creating opportunities for civic participation at scale. How do we get our community directly involved.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I wonder as somebody who has straddled these worlds and you know who I think even in the tech industry came at it from a slightly different view. What do you think when you see people who have, you know, made been very successful in business who, you know, promise they’re going to come in and fix government, that they’re going to run it like the private sector? As somebody who’s covered government for a long time. It always makes me a little nervous because, you know, you know, being on the city council and as mayor, they are not the same thing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> No, they’re not. There are some fundamental differences in government. We have to serve everyone. We should strive to serve everyone equally well and deliver equitable outcomes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You have to serve more people when the economy turns down, with less money.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> That’s right, we’re in way more lines of business than any any company would ever choose to be in. And even when we knock it out of the park, it’s not like we have a big profit margin and we can invest in more R&D. There are a number of differences. That being said, I think there is something about the innovation economy we have here in the Bay Area and the way that technology companies have pushed themselves to be highly iterative, to be data driven, to set objective measures of success and be less ideological about how to deliver the outcome that I find very compelling and think government can benefit from. When I was in the private sector and we had 18 months of runway before the company was literally out of business, it was very focusing, and we had to prioritize. We had to be honest about what was working and what wasn’t. And I think we could use more of that culture in government today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You ran as an outsider, especially when you ran for mayor, even though you were on the city council, you were not the choice of labor and of course you won. What was that transition like? You know, kind of running in some ways, I would say, against the city council. But, you know, I don’t think you had endorsements from the city council. Now you’re one of them. What did you have to do to kind of, you know, make make amends, if that’s the right phrase?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I don’t know if it was so much about making amends, but I’ve I’ve tried to be very consistent with my colleagues about why I ran and what I’m hoping to achieve while in office. And I believe there’s a lot of common ground because we all knock on the same doors. We all serve the same constituents. And while I certainly wasn’t the insider pick, I didn’t have a lot of endorsements. I was outspent by something like $3 million. I think at the end of the day, my colleagues and I, for the most part, want to see the same change. I think where we differ is sometimes around how to get there, and this is my own perspective on it, but I’m willing to push harder and maybe make folks a little less comfortable because I feel that on a few issues, like homelessness in particular, I just feel a great sense of urgency to deliver better outcomes. And I think we really have to question if what we’re doing today is working. And I think in some cases it’s not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, you also, though, are governing in a system that does not give you the kind of power that, say, London Breed might have in San Francisco. You know, it’s not a strong mayor system. You’re basically one of 11 votes on the city council. Would you like to change that? Do you think that that would benefit San Jose?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> You know, I don’t think that there’s actually a that the structure is what prevents us from creating change. There are days when I would like to see a greater alignment of responsibility with accountability. Certainly, I think there would be advantages to strengthening the role. But at the end of the day, what we really need are a systems for accountability, whether or not that is concentrated with the mayor’s office and why I might prefer to have more power, certainly, I think that what would actually create a better governance model is the performance management dashboards that I’m that I’ve put in the budget and that we’re bringing forward. As mayor, I do get to lead the budget process, I run the communications for the city and we will be bringing forward dashboards that take our top few priorities. And that’s been a big priority of mine, is focus taking us from 42 stated priorities and our roadmap down to four.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Which are?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Which are reducing homelessness, reducing crime, cleaning up the city and being an easier place to invest, and then creating objective measures for how well we are achieving those things. Identifying every dollar in the budget, how we are programing our solutions for those outcomes, and then measuring the performance of those programs and policies. That can create a system of accountability and the feedback loop we need, whether or not the mayor has more executive authority.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marisa Lagos. We’re talking with San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan. This is a fundraising period for KQED. For more information on how to support KQED, go to KQED.org. I’m wondering if those assessments, I know you haven’t been there that long, but have those assessments, have you learned already do you have some indications of things that maybe just aren’t working? Or is it too soon really to say?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, the big debate, as you’ve probably followed, has been around our approach to homelessness, our use of Measure E funding. One bright spot that I’m very proud of and I think my predecessor, Sam Liccardo, deserves a lot of credit here, has been the success of our quick build interim housing units. We’ve seen an 11% decline in unsheltered homelessness year over year and it corresponds, it tracks quite closely to our expansion of interim housing, these quick build communities where people get their own room, in many cases their own in-suite bathroom and most importantly on site services. We get people into a safe, stable environment as an alternative to encampments and connect them to the supportive services that can really transform their lives. And it seems to be working, and I think we should be doubling down on that and other programs that are working, such as paying homeless individuals to clean up the city. We’re seeing that program work as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, this has been a big debate down there, right? Your push really to take some of the money that has been earmarked for permanent housing and move it into more urgent, temporary solutions. I mean, before we go into the details, just talk about your thinking on that, because I think a lot of people would say, yeah, we need to do both. But there is as you’ve run up against, a limited amount of money and resources to do this, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, certainly we need to do both. But they’re on two very different timeframes. We have a crisis today. We have thousands of people living outside in terrible conditions. We literally had 246 people die on our streets in Santa Clara County last year. It’s unfair and inhumane for those who have no alternative to these encampments. Right now for our interim sites, we have a waiting list hundreds of people long to get in to an interim site just to get into shelter. People who want shelter and we have nowhere to offer them to go. It’s also unfair to the broader community and it doesn’t even make sense fiscally. It costs us over $65,000 per year to keep someone in an unsheltered, unmanaged condition, a tent encampment. That’s the impact on emergency rooms and 911 response.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I think for moral reasons, for fiscal reasons, for the benefit of the whole community, we have to be willing to acknowledge that the long run solution of building more workforce housing, more affordable housing is important but insufficient for ending this era of encampments. And I’ve simply argued that we’d be more pragmatic. We could end street homelessness in a matter of a year or two if we were truly focused on it. When the 1906 earthquake occurred here and San Franciscans woke up and found that over 5000 of their neighbors had lost their homes, there were emergency earthquake cottages built in a matter of weeks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> In Golden Gate Park.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Some of them are still standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> And some are still standing today. And I think we’re going to need to get back to that sense of urgency and pragmatism.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All big cities in California and really around the country are dealing with encampments, certainly here in San Francisco. And the idea of banning them or dismantling them and moving people out has been controversial. There’ve been court decisions that have made it harder to do that. You’ve proposed one in San Jose. Tell us about that, where it stands and what kind of pushback, if any, you’re getting on that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, I think we need to stop the blame game. We spent a lot of time blaming different levels of government, blaming judges, blaming the. Homeless. And the truth is, the Martin v. Boise decision, as an example, is not an impediment to us ending the era of encampments. What is the lack of shelter that we have to offer people? City of Boston, for example, has very comparable levels of homelessness per capita as we have in our large cities on the West Coast, but has a place for most people to be. And so there are unsheltered homelessness rate is down around 3%. Most big cities on the West Coast easily 60, 70% unsheltered.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So we are going to have to agree to scale up safe managed places for people to go. I don’t believe it’s one size fits all. Certainly for some people, a first stop might need to be a mental health hospital or a drug treatment center, but we need to have a safe indoor place for everyone in our state. And then we need to compel people to come indoors. And the good news is the vast majority of people who are outside are very willing to come inside if we offer them a safe place to go.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So what’s the hurdle? I know you had set a goal of having 1000 temporary housing units opened by the end of this year, another goal of moving a thousand people into shelter by the end of the year. Is it NIMBYism? Is it money? Like, what are the challenges?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Mostly political will. Right now, we’re having a discussion with our transit agency, VTA, and working with them to scope a potential site, 17 acres of empty land next to one of their maintenance yards.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Employees have pushed back, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Certainly, but everyone pushes back initially. The great news is what we’ve seen with these interim sites is that they actually make neighborhoods better off. We’ve seen calls for service for crime and blight go down. When we get people indoors. It’s common sense, but it’s not always people’s first reaction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So how do you convince them, like, what’s that conversation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> I’m doing a lot of town hall meetings. I was in the maintenance bay with about 150 VTA employees just a couple of weeks ago. And, you know, the interesting thing was, while the vast majority said, we don’t want this and I understand that, I hear that in every neighborhood, as we talked through it and we shared the experience we’ve had and as I was walking out, I had a number of individual employees come up to me and say, you know, we’re just worried about our safety. We understand, we don’t want it. But if you have to do it to end homelessness, we understand, just keep us safe and say, okay, I can work with that. That’s reasonable. It’s reasonable to have doubts. It’s reasonable to have fear. But we have to do something differently. We have to take some risks. We have to try new things. We have to be willing to collectively sacrifice if we want to solve this homelessness crisis and in the long run, we are all going to be better off.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And a lot of people already have homeless folks in their neighborhoods, right. And they’re not getting services.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> That’s correct, they’re already there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Short on time. Real quick, complicated topic. AI it’s really booming in San Francisco. Do you share the concerns a lot of people have that it’s, you know, needs to be regulated or how do you how do you think about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, any new technology marries opportunity with risk. And I appreciate that we were the first big city in the country to issue guidelines around the use of generative. I remember a lot of conversations about how to spur innovation, including making City Hall a sandbox for civic innovators who want to build new civic applications will be much more conversation in the years ahead. But on balance, I think it’s a huge opportunity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And you see a lot of opportunity for San Jose itself in terms of jobs?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> In terms of jobs, in terms of better delivery in city services. Absolutely. I think it’s the next frontier. It’s the most significant new technology platform and is likely to be transformative in many spaces.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All right, Matt Mahan is the mayor of San Jose, thanks so much for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Really appreciate it. That’s it for this edition of Political Breakdown, it’s a production of KQED Public Radio. Before we let you go, we wanted to let you know about a special event happening here. October 10th. Marisa and I are going to be interviewing Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi on stage, the speaker emerita here at KQED in San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> The event is actually sold out, but you can stream it live. And we want to know your questions. What do you want to ask former Speaker Pelosi? Shoot us an email. I’m at MLagos@KQED.org.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m SShafer@KQED.org For today, our producer is Guy Marzorati and our engineers are Jim Bennett, Brian Douglas and Christopher Beale. I’m Scott Shafer. Thanks for listening. We’ll see you next time, everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 6305,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 97
},
"modified": 1700874501,
"excerpt": "Plus, previewing this weekend's California Republican Party convention. ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Plus, previewing this weekend's California Republican Party convention. ",
"title": "Matt Mahan on Zuckerberg's Advice and Homeless Housing in San José | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Matt Mahan on Zuckerberg's Advice and Homeless Housing in San José",
"datePublished": "2023-09-28T18:30:23-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:08:21-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "matt-mahan-on-zuckerbergs-advice-and-homeless-housing-in-san-jose",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC3066583764.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11962814/matt-mahan-on-zuckerbergs-advice-and-homeless-housing-in-san-jose",
"audioDuration": 1886000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript. \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott and Marisa discuss the Republican presidential primary debate in California and preview this weekend’s GOP state party convention. Then, San José Mayor Matt Mahan joins to discuss his childhood in Watsonville, the career advice he got from Mark Zuckerberg and his efforts to build temporary housing for people experiencing homelessness in San José.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey everybody, from KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown, I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: And I’m Marisa Lagos. On today’s show, Matt Mahan ran for mayor of San Jose as an outsider. Now he’s very much on the inside, dealing with all the issues that big mayors are facing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Like addressing the city’s large unhoused population, balancing a budget at a time when revenues are down, and how to recover from the lingering effects of the pandemic. We’re going to talk with him about all of that, as well as growing up in Watsonville. I didn’t know that’s where he grew up. And sharing a dorm room with nobody but Mark Zuckerberg.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I don’t know if they were in the room together.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, the dorm building. They did hang out together.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And now he’s mayor, so who won that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> But let’s before we get to that, Marissa said last night at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley. Seven of the Republican candidates for president not named Donald Trump faced off for a debate, if you can call it that. It was really kind of a mud wrestling, shouting match.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> It was pretty awful. Not only is it, it does feel a little bit like, why are we even watching this, given Trump’s just ginormous lead in the polls. But you know what could happen between now and even the primaries. But yeah, it was like I thought I got excited for a moment. I was like, Oh, these candidates are actually going to go after the former president. And the only thing they really dinged him on was not being there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Donald Duck, that was a good line.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Not getting found guilty of fraud by a judge that very day. You know, it’s like it’s just like it’s a time warp. It’s very weird.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And no mention of the shutdown, which were like, now, what, 72, 48? How many hours is it? You know, no mention of that whatsoever.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But you know who talked about all of that? Governor Gavin Newsom who was randomly there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah he was in the spin room. Well he claims that the I mean I’m sure it’s true the Biden administration or the campaign asked him to go down there and be in the spin room. And then he was on with Sean Hannity, who apparently he’ll be joining November 30th for a debate with DeSantis. We’ll see if that actually happens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, interesting that Newsom told Elex Michaelson down in L.A. that essentially, like he was kind of trolling DeSantis to ask for that. And he feels like, you know, DeSantis is running for president and he’s like, why is he swinging down at me? But yeah, we’ll see. I was a little skeptical until last night that that debate would actually happen. But both of them said so on live TV. So it feels like maybe there stuck there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, that’ll be lively, but hopefully with only two of them, they won’t be constantly talking over each other and we might actually hear some stuff. But, you know, the one thing that I did find interesting in that debate was the questions from the Univision reporter, which were like so out of left field and so completely different about LGBTQ rights and gun violence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Immigration.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Immigration, DOCA. Now, of course, they didn’t answer hardly any of those questions, but the fact that they were asked on Fox Business, I thought was fantastic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it was it was a it was a weird debate. But yeah, I do think it’s fascinating seeing Newsom really come out as this like sort of top tier surrogate for Biden. You know, obviously, he’s said a million times he’s not running next year, but he’s certainly relishing this role. And I think it’s interesting that he is sort of, you know, being put out there. I think the Biden administration’s like, great, we don’t have to be at this stuff. But, you know, this weekend, Donald Trump will be appearing in California. He is speaking Friday at the GOP convention in Anaheim. I’m going to be there. And we’ll also hear from DeSantis and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy, the tech entrepreneur who really took the most punches, I think, on Wednesday night.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And Tik Tok social influencer, according to Nikki Haley Yeah. I mean, it’s you know, Trump is going to suck up a lot of the oxygen, of course. What are you going to be looking for? Because there is also, in addition to the candidates, there’s this big platform fight over abortion and same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think that this really illustrates the kind of debate within the Republican Party of like how much do we kind of go to the base and how much are do we need to widen our message, given how poorly we’ve done in a lot of these elections since 2022, around abortion, since, you know, Dobbs and all that, you know, Roe v Wade was overturned. So I’ll definitely be watching that fight, although the truth is, nobody really cares about a party platform. If you recall, the national GOP doesn’t even have one anymore. They just gave up on that. I think what’s going to be interesting is if anybody is even willing to talk about the government shutdown, I know I might have to file some stories on that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well that’s a story if they won’t.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think it might be like pulling teeth because I would be surprised if any of them actually bring it up in their remarks. And I think that, you know, a lot of the delegates will also sort of not want to talk about that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, it’s not going to look good because obviously there’s no question that this will happen because of those 20 or so Republicans in the House, the right wingers who are just aren’t going to vote for any kind of spending without huge spending cuts. So I just don’t think that’s going to happen. All right. We’re going to take a short break. Before we do, I want to tell you, we’ve got an upcoming live event here at KQED, a conversation. And I will have with Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, if you’d like to submit a question for her. We’ll tell you how to do that later in the show. All right. When we return, we’ll be joined by San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marisa Lagos. And joining us here in the studio is Matt Mahan. The former tech executive was elected mayor of San Jose last year, running as something of an outsider coming from the private sector. But he’s here to talk about running California’s third biggest city. Mayor Mahan, welcome to Political Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Thanks for coming in. Well you know, I don’t know if you’re a fan of the show, but we like to talk about people’s bios, like where you came from. And we know you were born in Watsonville or you grew up in Watsonville, which is an agricultural place. Tell us, you know, what was it like growing up there?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Sure. And believe it or not, I was actually born in San Francisco, but we moved down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> That’s why I corrected myself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah you’re right, good catch. We moved out to Watsonville when I was about a year old, and I grew up in a little farming town on the Central Coast. Strawberry capital of the world. Driscoll berries, Martinelli’s apple cider. And it was a great place as a kid. I grew up running around the creek in the orchards, but also didn’t have a ton of economic opportunity. Our local high school at a higher dropout rate than graduation rate. We had a very high unemployment rate, quite a bit of crime actually, in the nineties. And when it was time for high school, my mom encouraged me to look at other options. She had grown up in San Jose. I ended up applying to a Catholic school in San Jose called Bellarmine an all boys Jesuit school. I got in, but we couldn’t afford the tuition and they made me a great deal. They said that if I came over in the summers and worked on the maintenance crew, they would forgive my tuition.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I got to ask you, I read that and as somebody who’s not doesn’t have a lot of experience in Jesuit system, it actually struck me as kind of weird, like like you’re coming in as a more low income kid, working class kid, and you’re being told you have to work your way with these guys. And I also wonder if it could be sort of insulting to the maintenance crew. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t know. Was there anything kind of weird about that, that it made you feel more distant from, you know, the rest of your peers?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> So I will say the school has since discontinued the work study program, but I did not see it as as punitive or other-ising. I grew up out in the country, was used to being outside, using my hands, you know, would mow lawns and do little maintenance projects to earn side money growing up. So I saw it as an opportunity. I loved it. I loved Bellarmine It was it was a really strong sense of community that really believed in educating the whole person. And it opened doors that I didn’t know existed growing up in a little farming town.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And you probably had more respect for the maintenance crew and the folks doing that at the school.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> I came to campus first day. All my friends were the maintenance crew. I was working on my Spanish and I’m still in touch with some of them, actually, believe it or not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I think that school has three alumni that are were mayor, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> I believe that’s correct.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Sam Liccardo, was it McEnery, Tom McEnery, yeah I thought I read that. And your mom was a Catholic school teacher, too?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah down in Salinas. All girls Catholic school.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> She sort of encouraged you to, to get out of, out of town?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we all. We were all commuters. I mean, I think that’s the way it is in a lot of small towns is that for for economic opportunity you end up traveling. My bus ride was about 2 hours each way. I had to go over the Santa Cruz mountains every day. So it was about 4 hours a day on the bus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s rough. Well, your dad was a mail carrier. I wonder, I think in a union, I’m sure. Like, what did that impact? I mean, do you remember talking about that? Like, was politics something you talked about? Do you feel like his job and his union membership has at all impacted the way you’ve kind of viewed politics?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, absolutely. We talked about politics, religion, all those things you weren’t supposed to talk about at the dinner table. That’s what we talked about every night. I mean, we had access to health care because my dad was in a union, we were in a working class neighborhood. And my dad’s job was it was a good job. It was a job that allowed us to, even though we were pretty much paycheck to paycheck, it allowed us to get by. So certainly was part of my political consciousness. Also, just reading the local newspaper, you’ll appreciate this as folks and in the media world, I became very politically engaged by reading the Register Pajaronian down in Watsonville and then later the San Jose Mercury News. I had a lot of time on the bus and I would read the paper front page to back page.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And the Merc was an amazing paper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, it still still has a lot to recommend it. But yeah, I used to love reading the paper and trying to understand how how we can make things better.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We are going to get to your college and also to your, you know, time as mayor and the city council and all that. But I have to ask, you were growing up in Watsonville and I wonder where you were when the Loma Prieta earthquake happened because it was centered right down there in Aptos. You remember that day?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> I do, very well. I was seven years old. I have two younger sisters reached two years apart and we were home. I think the I believe the World Series was just starting. I was just getting into baseball at that age. I remember my sisters and I were sitting down coloring at the table. I think my mom had just given us a snack and gone out into the backyard. And I will never forget getting my sisters and going out to the doorway as they. Teach you to do as a kid and looking out at my mom in the backyard and literally seen the earth undulating, it was it was terrifying, but kind of amazing at the same time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I bet you pay attention to earthquake drills now that you’re mayor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Absolutely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s amazing. So you end up going to this college prep school in San Jose and then end up at Harvard. We read that you were in the same dorms as Mark Zuckerberg. So are you guys like, you know, going to like keg parties together? I mean, does that happen at Harvard? I don’t know. You’re both kind of overachievers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> We were more likely to be the guys going to grab a burrito at 10:00 at night down the street. But, yeah, I got to know Mark and many other amazing people in undergrad, very different from from where I came from, but was just a very energizing place. Everybody was, you know, had had some project they were working on. Mark’s just happened to be truly globally transformative.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And you had a chance, I think, to work with him. He could have invited you to join him and you decided not to. Any regrets about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, I think, you know, that was really actually a little bit later, interestingly. So I came back and I don’t mean to go out of order here, but after college, I spent a year in South America and then came back through a program called Teach for America. I wanted to be back home near my parents, who are who are starting to age and I was teaching at East Side San Jose and kind of figuring out what to do next. I was thinking maybe I’d go to law school and I ended up having dinner with Mark Zuckerberg and he asked me why I wanted to go to law school. I said, I want change the world. I want to make the world a better place. And he said, If you want to change the world, don’t be a lawyer. Go into tech. Build something, do something different. And so I did end up joining a startup that was one of the first applications on the Facebook platform.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I want to ask you a little bit about your time at Harvard, though, before we move on, because, I mean, you must be the guest with the most written about you as a college student that I’ve ever read. We found an old Crimson Tide article because you were really involved in student government and you were pretty outspoken about how your kind of political orthodoxy changed at Harvard, but also kind of pushing back. You know, we found this quote where you talked about how a lot of Harvard students are going to go on to these lucrative careers and kind of never do anything about the underlying structures around them. So talk about your political awakening there and what did you take away from that experience?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you know, I wrote my senior thesis on liberal arts education and this question of of why, why get college education. And I just had this feeling that there was a prescribed path for most of us at Harvard and that you were going to go be a lawyer, a doctor, a consultant, an investment banker or whatever, whatever it might be. And I just wasn’t comfortable with that. It’s why I ended up spending the year in South America and then coming back and being a teacher and frankly, bouncing around a bit in my early career because I’ve always been interested in how you can organize people to create change, create more opportunity, create a better future. And that’s probably why tech ended up appealing to me. It was because people were building new things. They were creative. They were using their imagination to ask, you know, why not? Why can’t we do something differently? And so that was something that, frankly, for me, it was a little missing at Harvard in some ways, as amazing as it was, could be a little prescribed, a little stifling. And I wanted to do something different.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So as you said, you were in South America, I think Bolivia for a while. You taught with Teach for America and then you decided to go into the private sector. You went in on an app called Causes, I think, with Sean Parker, then Brigade, which all had kind of a do-gooder democratic bent to them, fair to say. What did you learn from that experience that you think you, you know, use now either at city council or as mayor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, you know, what I thought most about during those years of building both of those platforms was really about how to apply something that we’ve done for all of human history offline, which is essentially organizing community organizing. I’d taken a class from Marshall Ganz in college, which was very impactful, and Robert Putnam, the author of Bowling Alone. And I was also thinking about community and social capital and what does it take to build capacity at the grassroots level for people to create a better future? And then had this new opportunity, this digital overlay. I ran one of the first, maybe the first political campaigns on the Facebook platform when I was in college. And so I’ve also thought about how do we create scale around participation? How do we help people to break out of this, this anomie we have in modernity, where we feel very small compared to the problems in our community. And I think the answer to that is collective action is to plug into something bigger than oneself. And technology makes that possible to scale that wasn’t before available to us. And I’ve tried to bring that directly into government. Again, not to skip ahead, but everything we’ve done both in the campaign and now governing, has been about creating opportunities for civic participation at scale. How do we get our community directly involved.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I wonder as somebody who has straddled these worlds and you know who I think even in the tech industry came at it from a slightly different view. What do you think when you see people who have, you know, made been very successful in business who, you know, promise they’re going to come in and fix government, that they’re going to run it like the private sector? As somebody who’s covered government for a long time. It always makes me a little nervous because, you know, you know, being on the city council and as mayor, they are not the same thing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> No, they’re not. There are some fundamental differences in government. We have to serve everyone. We should strive to serve everyone equally well and deliver equitable outcomes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You have to serve more people when the economy turns down, with less money.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> That’s right, we’re in way more lines of business than any any company would ever choose to be in. And even when we knock it out of the park, it’s not like we have a big profit margin and we can invest in more R&D. There are a number of differences. That being said, I think there is something about the innovation economy we have here in the Bay Area and the way that technology companies have pushed themselves to be highly iterative, to be data driven, to set objective measures of success and be less ideological about how to deliver the outcome that I find very compelling and think government can benefit from. When I was in the private sector and we had 18 months of runway before the company was literally out of business, it was very focusing, and we had to prioritize. We had to be honest about what was working and what wasn’t. And I think we could use more of that culture in government today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You ran as an outsider, especially when you ran for mayor, even though you were on the city council, you were not the choice of labor and of course you won. What was that transition like? You know, kind of running in some ways, I would say, against the city council. But, you know, I don’t think you had endorsements from the city council. Now you’re one of them. What did you have to do to kind of, you know, make make amends, if that’s the right phrase?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I don’t know if it was so much about making amends, but I’ve I’ve tried to be very consistent with my colleagues about why I ran and what I’m hoping to achieve while in office. And I believe there’s a lot of common ground because we all knock on the same doors. We all serve the same constituents. And while I certainly wasn’t the insider pick, I didn’t have a lot of endorsements. I was outspent by something like $3 million. I think at the end of the day, my colleagues and I, for the most part, want to see the same change. I think where we differ is sometimes around how to get there, and this is my own perspective on it, but I’m willing to push harder and maybe make folks a little less comfortable because I feel that on a few issues, like homelessness in particular, I just feel a great sense of urgency to deliver better outcomes. And I think we really have to question if what we’re doing today is working. And I think in some cases it’s not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, you also, though, are governing in a system that does not give you the kind of power that, say, London Breed might have in San Francisco. You know, it’s not a strong mayor system. You’re basically one of 11 votes on the city council. Would you like to change that? Do you think that that would benefit San Jose?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> You know, I don’t think that there’s actually a that the structure is what prevents us from creating change. There are days when I would like to see a greater alignment of responsibility with accountability. Certainly, I think there would be advantages to strengthening the role. But at the end of the day, what we really need are a systems for accountability, whether or not that is concentrated with the mayor’s office and why I might prefer to have more power, certainly, I think that what would actually create a better governance model is the performance management dashboards that I’m that I’ve put in the budget and that we’re bringing forward. As mayor, I do get to lead the budget process, I run the communications for the city and we will be bringing forward dashboards that take our top few priorities. And that’s been a big priority of mine, is focus taking us from 42 stated priorities and our roadmap down to four.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Which are?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Which are reducing homelessness, reducing crime, cleaning up the city and being an easier place to invest, and then creating objective measures for how well we are achieving those things. Identifying every dollar in the budget, how we are programing our solutions for those outcomes, and then measuring the performance of those programs and policies. That can create a system of accountability and the feedback loop we need, whether or not the mayor has more executive authority.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marisa Lagos. We’re talking with San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan. This is a fundraising period for KQED. For more information on how to support KQED, go to KQED.org. I’m wondering if those assessments, I know you haven’t been there that long, but have those assessments, have you learned already do you have some indications of things that maybe just aren’t working? Or is it too soon really to say?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, the big debate, as you’ve probably followed, has been around our approach to homelessness, our use of Measure E funding. One bright spot that I’m very proud of and I think my predecessor, Sam Liccardo, deserves a lot of credit here, has been the success of our quick build interim housing units. We’ve seen an 11% decline in unsheltered homelessness year over year and it corresponds, it tracks quite closely to our expansion of interim housing, these quick build communities where people get their own room, in many cases their own in-suite bathroom and most importantly on site services. We get people into a safe, stable environment as an alternative to encampments and connect them to the supportive services that can really transform their lives. And it seems to be working, and I think we should be doubling down on that and other programs that are working, such as paying homeless individuals to clean up the city. We’re seeing that program work as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, this has been a big debate down there, right? Your push really to take some of the money that has been earmarked for permanent housing and move it into more urgent, temporary solutions. I mean, before we go into the details, just talk about your thinking on that, because I think a lot of people would say, yeah, we need to do both. But there is as you’ve run up against, a limited amount of money and resources to do this, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Yeah, certainly we need to do both. But they’re on two very different timeframes. We have a crisis today. We have thousands of people living outside in terrible conditions. We literally had 246 people die on our streets in Santa Clara County last year. It’s unfair and inhumane for those who have no alternative to these encampments. Right now for our interim sites, we have a waiting list hundreds of people long to get in to an interim site just to get into shelter. People who want shelter and we have nowhere to offer them to go. It’s also unfair to the broader community and it doesn’t even make sense fiscally. It costs us over $65,000 per year to keep someone in an unsheltered, unmanaged condition, a tent encampment. That’s the impact on emergency rooms and 911 response.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I think for moral reasons, for fiscal reasons, for the benefit of the whole community, we have to be willing to acknowledge that the long run solution of building more workforce housing, more affordable housing is important but insufficient for ending this era of encampments. And I’ve simply argued that we’d be more pragmatic. We could end street homelessness in a matter of a year or two if we were truly focused on it. When the 1906 earthquake occurred here and San Franciscans woke up and found that over 5000 of their neighbors had lost their homes, there were emergency earthquake cottages built in a matter of weeks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> In Golden Gate Park.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Some of them are still standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> And some are still standing today. And I think we’re going to need to get back to that sense of urgency and pragmatism.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All big cities in California and really around the country are dealing with encampments, certainly here in San Francisco. And the idea of banning them or dismantling them and moving people out has been controversial. There’ve been court decisions that have made it harder to do that. You’ve proposed one in San Jose. Tell us about that, where it stands and what kind of pushback, if any, you’re getting on that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, I think we need to stop the blame game. We spent a lot of time blaming different levels of government, blaming judges, blaming the. Homeless. And the truth is, the Martin v. Boise decision, as an example, is not an impediment to us ending the era of encampments. What is the lack of shelter that we have to offer people? City of Boston, for example, has very comparable levels of homelessness per capita as we have in our large cities on the West Coast, but has a place for most people to be. And so there are unsheltered homelessness rate is down around 3%. Most big cities on the West Coast easily 60, 70% unsheltered.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So we are going to have to agree to scale up safe managed places for people to go. I don’t believe it’s one size fits all. Certainly for some people, a first stop might need to be a mental health hospital or a drug treatment center, but we need to have a safe indoor place for everyone in our state. And then we need to compel people to come indoors. And the good news is the vast majority of people who are outside are very willing to come inside if we offer them a safe place to go.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So what’s the hurdle? I know you had set a goal of having 1000 temporary housing units opened by the end of this year, another goal of moving a thousand people into shelter by the end of the year. Is it NIMBYism? Is it money? Like, what are the challenges?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Mostly political will. Right now, we’re having a discussion with our transit agency, VTA, and working with them to scope a potential site, 17 acres of empty land next to one of their maintenance yards.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Employees have pushed back, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Certainly, but everyone pushes back initially. The great news is what we’ve seen with these interim sites is that they actually make neighborhoods better off. We’ve seen calls for service for crime and blight go down. When we get people indoors. It’s common sense, but it’s not always people’s first reaction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So how do you convince them, like, what’s that conversation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> I’m doing a lot of town hall meetings. I was in the maintenance bay with about 150 VTA employees just a couple of weeks ago. And, you know, the interesting thing was, while the vast majority said, we don’t want this and I understand that, I hear that in every neighborhood, as we talked through it and we shared the experience we’ve had and as I was walking out, I had a number of individual employees come up to me and say, you know, we’re just worried about our safety. We understand, we don’t want it. But if you have to do it to end homelessness, we understand, just keep us safe and say, okay, I can work with that. That’s reasonable. It’s reasonable to have doubts. It’s reasonable to have fear. But we have to do something differently. We have to take some risks. We have to try new things. We have to be willing to collectively sacrifice if we want to solve this homelessness crisis and in the long run, we are all going to be better off.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And a lot of people already have homeless folks in their neighborhoods, right. And they’re not getting services.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> That’s correct, they’re already there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Short on time. Real quick, complicated topic. AI it’s really booming in San Francisco. Do you share the concerns a lot of people have that it’s, you know, needs to be regulated or how do you how do you think about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Well, any new technology marries opportunity with risk. And I appreciate that we were the first big city in the country to issue guidelines around the use of generative. I remember a lot of conversations about how to spur innovation, including making City Hall a sandbox for civic innovators who want to build new civic applications will be much more conversation in the years ahead. But on balance, I think it’s a huge opportunity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And you see a lot of opportunity for San Jose itself in terms of jobs?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> In terms of jobs, in terms of better delivery in city services. Absolutely. I think it’s the next frontier. It’s the most significant new technology platform and is likely to be transformative in many spaces.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All right, Matt Mahan is the mayor of San Jose, thanks so much for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Matt Mahan:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Really appreciate it. That’s it for this edition of Political Breakdown, it’s a production of KQED Public Radio. Before we let you go, we wanted to let you know about a special event happening here. October 10th. Marisa and I are going to be interviewing Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi on stage, the speaker emerita here at KQED in San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> The event is actually sold out, but you can stream it live. And we want to know your questions. What do you want to ask former Speaker Pelosi? Shoot us an email. I’m at MLagos@KQED.org.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m SShafer@KQED.org For today, our producer is Guy Marzorati and our engineers are Jim Bennett, Brian Douglas and Christopher Beale. I’m Scott Shafer. Thanks for listening. We’ll see you next time, everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11962814/matt-mahan-on-zuckerbergs-advice-and-homeless-housing-in-san-jose",
"authors": [
"255",
"3239"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_31197",
"news_22235",
"news_18541"
],
"featImg": "news_11962830",
"label": "source_news_11962814"
},
"news_11962092": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11962092",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11962092",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1695345924000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1695345924,
"format": "audio",
"title": "Changes Coming to California's Property Insurance Marketplace",
"headTitle": "Changes Coming to California’s Property Insurance Marketplace | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript. \u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Marisa and Scott discuss the moves by Governor Gavin Newsom and Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to shore up California’s home insurance marketplace in the face of growing wildfire risk with Michael Wara, \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">director of the Climate and Energy Policy program at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. Then, KQED Labor Correspondent Farida Jhabvala Romero joins to talk about the wins for organized labor in this year’s legislative session. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey, everyone from KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown and I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. Today on the Breakdown: California’s home insurance crisis. We’ll examine a plan from Governor Newsom and Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to stop the exodus of major insurers from California and hopefully help stabilize the market for homeowners insurance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And then we’re going to examine the big legislative wins for organized labor at the state capitol this year that are now leaving Newsom with some tough decisions over the next few weeks. But first, Scott, as you mentioned, the governor did issue this executive order Thursday directing the insurance commissioner to take regulatory action and address this issue. Joining us to talk about it, hopefully explain it to all of us is Michael Wara, he’s director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. Michael Wara thanks for joining us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Always a pleasure to talk to you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: Well, you are often called upon by folks in our role to explain a lot of this stuff, honestly. And so let’s start at the top. What did the governor do when he stepped into the crisis with this executive order? What does it say? Why is he doing this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara\u003c/strong>: Well, many of your listeners may have heard that there was an attempt to pass legislation this session to address what folks that live in higher fire risk areas of the state are experiencing, that it’s getting harder and harder to find insurance. And there’s a complicated set of reasons that boil down to the fact that the risk is increasing and the prices of insurance have not increased enough to match that increased risk. And we could get into like reinsurance and all these.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We probably will. \u003cem>[laughs] \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> That’s the bottom line. Right? The price doesn’t match the risk. And so the insurers, these people who constantly advertise at you on the radio and on TV trying to get new customers are all of a sudden saying, ‘nah we don’t want new customers anymore because we can’t make a profit in California.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Go ahead, finish.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> So that’s a that’s a huge problem for homeowners. And the legislature tried to get a fix done, didn’t work out at the last minute. And now the governor has stepped in to ask Commissioner Lara, the commissioner of insurance, to take kind of emergency regulatory action to do a lot of the things that were apparently, I mean, I haven’t seen the language, but were apparently a part of the legislative conversation. So to reinterpret the law, which isn’t going to change from this action, but to reinterpret it to allow a law, a set of steps that will hopefully stabilize the insurance situation in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And so why was an executive order necessary? I mean, is this going to do what the legislation might have done if it had passed, or is this sort of a temporary measure?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Well, I think this could be a permanent measure. You know, the executive order directs the insurance commissioner to write regulations. Right? So it doesn’t actually change things yet, but it does give the commissioner, you know, kind of air cover to take steps that are going to be, that are politically controversial. There’s no reason to hide the ball about this, insurance, home insurance costs in California will go up modestly if these steps are taken. What will also occur is that insurance will be available to people in a way that it is currently not. And so it’s not you know, it’s not a question of sort of, you know, is it the price higher or lower? It’s can you even get insurance?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And and there’s a there’s another issue that relates to there’s kind of an insurance of last resort called the FAIR Plan. And the FAIR Plan has gotten itself into real trouble because as people have been kind of ditched by their normal private insurers like State Farm, for example, they have to go to this other plan, which is much more expensive, the coverage is not as good, and that plan is actually undercapitalized. And so if there were to be a big fire in California, which hopefully there will not be, and we’ve had really good luck this year, and let’s hope that luck sticks through October, November, December. But if it were to be a big fire, that plan could essentially go belly up.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: Okay but I mean, what I’m hearing you say is that this was maybe not as legally necessary for the governor to direct this as it was politically expedient for him to sort of direct. So I don’t know, it feels like what the insurance commissioner is being asked to do, he maybe had the power to do already. But as you said, a lot of this stuff is not very popular. And my understanding of it is it might kind of supersede some of the proposition that has, you know, dictated how we do this. So in the past, so you mentioned reinsurance. This is essentially insurance companies, they go and get their coverage covered by bigger companies, bigger insurance companies. There’s also the question of like, how do they model this stuff? Right. So are we looking back in time at what has already happened or are we predicting into the future? Currently, they can’t predict into the future with these algorithms and models, Right. Are they going to be able to do that now? Like, does this just say, hey, go ahead, do these things that before you couldn’t do?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Well, so let me answer your first question first, Marisa, which is, does this change Prop 103? Arguably, it does not. And the commissioner is not allowed to do that. The provisions of Prop 103 are part of the constitution, you can’t just decide by a regulation to modify that. What this does is change how the words in Prop 103 are interpreted. So Prop 103 says set a rate, a cost of insurance for premiums that reflects the risk. In plain language, that’s what it says. So what does that mean? Well, the way it’s been interpreted over the years in the homeowners context is look backward and take the average of the losses over the last 20 years. And that worked fine when losses weren’t increasing rapidly because of climate change. Of course, the governor, and I don’t know if the insurance commissioner is in New York right now for Climate Week, but the governor’s in Climate Week making all kinds of announcements about climate change and how California’s leading. The funny thing is that our insurance system kind of pretends that climate change doesn’t exist, and that’s not workable anymore. And so it’s not so much forward-looking climate models as climate models that estimate the risk today, to the average of the risk over the last two decades. And if you think about it like fire risk in 2003 —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Or even ten years ago.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Or even ten years ago. So we live in a different world and unfortunately and climate change is a big part of it, their are other causes it’s complicated problem. But allowing the insurers to use a model is also something that happens in other kinds of insurance. So, for example, earthquake insurance uses CAT models and that’s been okay for a long time, even after Prop 103. So this is not unprecedented in California, but it’s not traditionally the approach has been taken.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And you mentioned that, you know, rates are going to go up, but it will be available to everybody. Are rates going to go up equally across the board or will people in high risk areas be paying, you know, the bulk of the increase?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> That’s a great question, Scott. And I think the answer is this is more the second than the first. It’s likely that this might California has rates, insurance rates that are among the lowest in the country. And a lot of that, the credit for that is due to Prop 103. And it’s probably the case that these changes will cause rates to go up modestly in low risk areas and more in high risk areas. But what it will mean is you can actually buy insurance in the high risk rates, which is something that is going away very quickly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, which is different than earthquake insurance, because people, if they have loans, are required to have basic homeowner’s, they’re not required to have earthquake. And a lot of people opt out because it’s really expensive. Before we get into that, I mean, you mentioned at the top that there was this attempt at a legislative deal. It did fall apart. There was a conversation taped on a plane that leaked with lobbyists. I mean, there’s a lot of drama around it. But the bottom line is consumer advocates have really been feeling like they’ve been shut out of these conversations. And it feels like if they’re taking this action at the insurance commissioner level to kind of go around or change the way Proposition 103 is interpreted, that feels like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Like, is this about to be a big legal battle?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Well, I think it’s going to depend on how, the skill with which Commissioner Lara and the Department of Insurance can navigate a new regulatory process. So the proof will be in the pudding. I think that the insurers, they’re happy, I imagine, with this announcement. But what they really care about is a regulation that is finalized and survives court challenge because that’s what’s going to affect their business environment, not, you know, a press conference. And so we really have to see, you know, how fast can this get done. Time also matters. The situation is deteriorating rapidly in California. And so if this takes a year or 18 months, that’s too long. So we’ll have to see how fast they can move. And then also what the response of Consumer Watchdog in particular, which is the main consumer advocate and insurance space in California, what their response is.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You were advising Senator Dodd as he tried to pull together a compromise on this in the legislature. Time ran out. Was it because this was a difficult vote politically, or could the various sides not come together on an agreement that they could vote on?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Well, I’m not privy to the exact internal dynamics of the negotiation that occurred. But what I would say is that this is a super complicated issue and it requires elected officials to take a hard vote. And I think we just ran out of time. You know, it requires a lot of education. And, you know, just like for regular folks, like what is going on, you don’t need to know about re-insurance, you just want your home insurance policy so you can have your mortgage. And the there’s a lot of complication. And the consumer advocates were able to really effectively say, look, this is going to raise insurance costs. So and maybe it’s going to raise insurance costs for people in urban areas to benefit people in rural areas, kind of a two Californias sort of vibe. And that was effective in pulling apart, you know, what would have had to be in the legislature, a two-thirds vote. So I think the decision was taken not to bring this up, not to try to get a two-thirds coalition in the three days that were available at the end of the session.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, you mentioned Consumer Watchdog. They’ve been very critical of Insurance Commissioner Lara. And I know that the insurance companies have also complained about the the speed or lack thereof that the commissioner’s office takes in reviewing rates and approving hikes. Do you have confidence that this office is up to the pretty steep task that you’ve laid out of creating these regulations and kind of doing so in an urgent manner?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> I think it’s a tall order, and the challenge is going to be that there are relatively straightforward ways to issue an emergency regulation that makes these changes. And of course, emergency regulations only last for six months. So as soon as you issue the emergency reg, you then start a process to do the normal regulatory process. I don’t know if Commissioner Lara intends to take that path. Certainly on some of these things, like the inclusion of these catastrophe models in an insurance premium rate setting, he’s wanted to have a much more kind of transparent, sort of a lot more elaborate process, and that will slow down what happens and I think also potentially increase its risk. I don’t know. But, you know, there are real tradeoffs here between speed and kind of allowing everyone to comment on every issue that they think is important.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, to what extent do you see this as a placeholder, You know, something to kind of stabilize the market while the legislature can reconvene next year and pick this back up?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> I think this is more than a placeholder if CDI is successful. But what I would emphasize is that this whole situation is fundamentally unstable because of climate change and the growing risk of wildfire. And the step that we really need to take and that we have not done as effectively as we need to, is to really dramatically reduce the risk that homes burn down in wildfires. And there are known ways to do that. And we’ve done some of them. And, you know, the governor’s team has made a lot of efforts in that space over the last five years, six years, I guess. But there’s a lot more we need to do, especially when it comes to structures and not losing, like not having what happened in Santa Rosa occur or Paradise or Lahaina more recently. And so the real way out of this is a combination of financial engineering, which is what a lot of this is about, and real physical engineering in the world. And we have to do both or there’s no there’s not a long term fix.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And Newsom and Larra can’t do all of that by themselves. A lot of it’s up to the rest of us. That’s Michael Wara, he’s director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. Thank you for unpacking this for us. We really appreciate you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> It’s great to talk to both of you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Thanks, Michael.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We are going to take a short break. When we come back, we’ll talk about a Hot Labor Summer at the state capitol. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to the Political Breakdown, I’m Marisa Lagos here with Scott Shafer. Well, the legislature wrapped up its work in Sacramento about a week ago, but not before passing some landmark bills for labor in California. They included higher minimum wages for fast food and health care workers, more paid sick leave for California employees, unemployment for workers on strike and more. It’s all on Governor Newsom’s desk now and here to unpack it with us is KQED labor correspondent Farida Jhabvavla Romero. Farida, thanks for being here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> I’m happy to be here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So we said, you know, the line, Hot Labor Summer, This is not just happening in Sacramento. There’s been labor actions nationally, UAW strike, you know, ongoing Hollywood strikes. Is that what accounts you think for this action? This success in Sacramento, is it this bigger kind of political culture right now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think it definitely has played a big role, just this awareness about the struggles of working people in our state, certainly. And then more pressure, you know, just in the form of strikes or people threatening to strike. And, you know, all of that goes to the high cost of living in the state, but also like bigger trends, like surging inflation, you know, like with the price of groceries going up. And then like we had like the almost record pretty much record gas prices not too long ago. And then, you know, coming out of the pandemic, a lot of discontent. And, you know, workers feeling really disgruntled and underappreciated, especially in sectors like health care you know, and other essential jobs are people felt like they really suffered and they’re not seeing their employers, you know, increase their wages the way they would or improve working conditions. And then there’s just like income inequality. I think a lot of people are just thinking more about that. And, you know, like today there was a new report by the Economic Policy Institute and they say that CEO compensation has really skyrocketed from the 1970s and that now CEOs on average make about 344 times more than what a typical worker makes. And so, you know, those are some big issues that I think legislators are, you know, trying to intervene and take steps on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, and among the big winners in the session, fast food workers, a deal was struck between the legislature and the restaurant industry that’s going to guarantee them a raise of up to $20 an hour from the current 1550. And as part of that deal, a referendum on a new law with even higher, higher hourly wage is going to get pulled. But I’m wondering, you know, from your reporting, who who makes up that population of fast food workers and how big a deal is this for them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that’s it’s a huge deal. And I think it’s something where we saw the industry really, you know, come out and say it was going to cause, you know, they thought it was going to cost them this referendum fight, was going to cost them more than $100 million, you know, And that wasn’t it. There was another bill in the, you know, moving through the legislature that would have made corporations, fast food corporations liable for violations at their franchisees, you know, by their franchisees. And they said that was going to really, you know, change the franchise model. So it was becoming like a tit for tat is the way, you know, some people —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So they had some incentive to come to the table.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, they really did, you know, And so they came out with this deal, which, you know, like your original question, it’s more than 500,000, half a million workers in the state in the industry. A lot of them, you know, we think of them before, you know, it was like teenagers, you know. But now it’s a lot of adult immigrant, you know, people with families and a lot of them women, people of color.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Retirees, even sometimes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And many of them, you know, making pretty close to minimum wage. And I think a union representative was telling me the average is around $16 an hour. So this jumped to $20 an hour is going to be a big, big significant change.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that one is so interesting because it does pull in so many other kind of factors when you think about the referendum process and the leverage that they had there. There was another bill passed that actually allowed it to be pulled off. I think there was threats that they could kind of do some of what they wanted to do with the fast food council through the administration, the governor’s administration. So there was a lot of things happening there. I am curious, though, I feel like some of the other bills are a little more straightforward. Right. So like, let’s talk about unemployment insurance for striking workers. That seems like that’s a big hot potato for the governor. A lot of pushback. I mean, what did you hear in terms of the arguments for it and how realistic do you think it is that we actually see it signed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> I mean, that’s super controversial. I’ll definitely answer your question about, say, you know, it’s very unclear how many striking workers could actually get unemployment benefits because the bill basically just expands eligibility to who can apply for unemployment to people who are on strike for more than two weeks. But you still have to meet all of the other requirements, like proving that you’re looking for work. So it’s unclear to me, at least at this point, you know, how many people will, you know, be able to —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I know EDD is really crack down on that. They’re like doing interviews now with people because of all the fraud we’ve seen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Right, so there’s heightened, you know, vigilance on that. But I mean, the proponents for the bill, what they were saying is that this would send a really clear message, you know, to especially wealthier, bigger companies that they, you know, should come to the table to negotiate in good faith. Because what we saw, especially with the Writers Guild, there were stories about, you know, executives at the studios saying that they were just going to wait out, you know, people until they started losing their homes or couldn’t pay rent. And then they have to come and, you know, bargain, you know, on what they want. So I think it was this concerted effort from the legislature, or at least this wish and this concern that negotiations are not super, you know, protracted and last forever and that both parties come and negotiate in good faith.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It does seem like the governor is maybe laying the groundwork for a veto of that legislation. He was saying in an interview with Politico a couple of weeks ago that the unemployment insurance fund is running kind of low.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. And that was one of the main arguments against it that, you know, California already borrowed billions of dollars from the federal government to keep the unemployment insurance fund solvent and that, you know, employers are paying that because the unemployment insurance fund is funded, is financed with the taxes on employers per employee. And so it just you know, that’s another concern with this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED. I’m Marisa Lagos, here with Scott Shafer We were talking about labor’s big wins in Sacramento this year. This is a fund raising period for KQED Public Radio. So for more information about how to support KQED, go to KQED.org\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Farida, you’ve done a lot of great reporting on wage theft and how well the state labor commission deals with that. There’s been huge backlogs. It seems like, you know, based on what you’ve learned and reported, it seems like that would be a really important thing to be pressing on, if you’re the legislature, make sure that that agency is functioning properly and that there isn’t such a long wait time. Have you seen any movement along those lines that workers who are waiting for some kind of, you know, judgment or answer?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. I mean, it’s a really interesting question. I think there’s just more awareness that, like you said, I mean, there’s this agency, the labor commissioner’s office, and, you know, charged with investigating wage theft and other labor violations. But there’s also Cal/OSHA, you know, like the state regulators on occupational health and safety, which is having the same problems. They’re understaffed and it seems like a lot of the problem is sort of this like bureaucratic internal situation, you know, where the state is, you know, having similar issues to other employers where there’s a labor shortage, you know, their wages may not be as competitive. There’s a big problem, at least from people inside of these agencies, you know what they’re saying with just like the length of time it takes to get, you know, candidates vetted and and hired. So there seems to be a lot of bureaucratic stuff inside the agency that I’m not sure if, like legislation is the way to do it and it seems like that’s maybe lawmakers agree because you don’t see many bills on that. But I do have to say there is an audit. The state auditor is looking at the labor commissioner’s office and a big emphasis of the of the audit, is looking at these processes for why the agency is so understaffed because they have the money. The governor has been giving them more money to hire more people and then what just happens is like the vacancy rate increases or that you know, the proportion of how many positions are filled because actually have more positions available and they’re not able to get people in there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Interesting. All right. Well, I want to hit a couple other bills I know that you’ve been following. One is one by Senator Maria Elena Durazo, who is a big labor leader, which, which if it’s signed, would include about 300,000 domestic workers in workplace health and safety laws. And we’re talking people who generally tend to work for individuals, right? House cleaners, nannies, other care providers. Yeah. So how would that work? Like, what is the bill do and how and would it actually help those domestic workers?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so that’s a really interesting one because domestic workers are completely excluded from California’s workplace safety and health protections that other workers enjoy. And if you go look at the California labor law, they don’t consider domestic work employment. It’s like in the law. And that’s why Cal/OSHA has no jurisdiction over these types of complaints by these workers. And so what the bill would do is sort of like include them, you know, like just with everybody else. But Governor Newsom vetoed a similar bill a couple of years ago because he was concerned about what, you know, the requirements are for employers to keep workers safe. You know, they have to have like this injury illness prevention plan —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And like worker’s comp and other insurance, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> And that it was going to be just too, you know, too difficult, you know, for people who own homes and are employers because they have a nanny, for example. So that’s a balance that we’re going to see, you know, what’s going to happen this year. Since then, the governor did approve a bill that set up this advisory committee to study the issue\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Always a good way to punt\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah like delay a little bit. But now they have, you know, more ammunition in a sense, like the people that support this proposal, because the advisory committee, which included employers, you know, also came up saying that California should get rid of this exclusion of domestic workers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> One of the other bills that the governor is going to have to decide on is allowing the legislative staff to unionize. I would imagine he’ll defer to the legislature on that and probably sign it. And another one that would require a human to be in a truck that is a quote unquote, driverless truck. We’ll have to see what the governor does in that. He’s you know, he’s often been, you know, very sympathetic, I think, to the tech industry. And it does kind of like, yes, it would save a job, but it would also it was kind of stunt that that technology in a way. Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I think these are a lot of a lot of hot potatoes for the governor. I’m curious, we only have like a minute and a half left. Do you think that this bill to expand the number of paid sick days from 3 to 5, is that a hot potato or is that kind of post-COVID it feels like not as controversial.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, not as big, right? Yeah. I mean, there’s a number of states that have more minimum paid sick days than California, a lot more actually. And so California has sort of fallen behind, you know, in that sense, you know, compared to other states. That bill was originally proposing, seven days of paid sick leave and then on down to five, you know, in negotiations, it is you know, it would be difficult for a lot of small businesses especially is what I’ve heard you know because they do have to front those costs. And there was a really interesting survey of hundreds of small business owners in California where the business owners said, hey, we agree, you know, with having more paid sick days off because we don’t want people to come in and like make us sick or, you know, we want them to recover. But we do need help from the state to pay for it. So, you know, we’ll see what happens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Very short time left, but lots got through the legislature. What would you say, one or two things that you think they may come back with in the in the session? What was left undone? Real quick, if you could?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Um, I don’t know. I can’t think of it at this point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I think it depends on what the governor does or doesn’t sign.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And he can certainly say, Look, we did a whole lot this year and don’t send me anything for a while.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> I don’t think they’re going to stop. No, no, no. These bills are coming.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer: \u003c/strong> A very pro-labor speaker as well, Robert Rivas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And a lot of polling that shows the public supports labor so we’ll see. That was KQED labor correspondent Farida Jhabvala Romero. Thanks for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. We are a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today, the one and only Christopher Beale. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos. We’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 5630,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 75
},
"modified": 1700874507,
"excerpt": "Plus, unpacking the major labor bills passed by the legislature this year. ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Plus, unpacking the major labor bills passed by the legislature this year. ",
"title": "Changes Coming to California's Property Insurance Marketplace | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Changes Coming to California's Property Insurance Marketplace",
"datePublished": "2023-09-21T18:25:24-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:08:27-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "changes-coming-to-californias-property-insurance-marketplace",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC4632330785.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11962092/changes-coming-to-californias-property-insurance-marketplace",
"audioDuration": 1812000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript. \u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Marisa and Scott discuss the moves by Governor Gavin Newsom and Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to shore up California’s home insurance marketplace in the face of growing wildfire risk with Michael Wara, \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">director of the Climate and Energy Policy program at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. Then, KQED Labor Correspondent Farida Jhabvala Romero joins to talk about the wins for organized labor in this year’s legislative session. \u003c/span>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey, everyone from KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown and I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. Today on the Breakdown: California’s home insurance crisis. We’ll examine a plan from Governor Newsom and Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to stop the exodus of major insurers from California and hopefully help stabilize the market for homeowners insurance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And then we’re going to examine the big legislative wins for organized labor at the state capitol this year that are now leaving Newsom with some tough decisions over the next few weeks. But first, Scott, as you mentioned, the governor did issue this executive order Thursday directing the insurance commissioner to take regulatory action and address this issue. Joining us to talk about it, hopefully explain it to all of us is Michael Wara, he’s director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. Michael Wara thanks for joining us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Always a pleasure to talk to you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: Well, you are often called upon by folks in our role to explain a lot of this stuff, honestly. And so let’s start at the top. What did the governor do when he stepped into the crisis with this executive order? What does it say? Why is he doing this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara\u003c/strong>: Well, many of your listeners may have heard that there was an attempt to pass legislation this session to address what folks that live in higher fire risk areas of the state are experiencing, that it’s getting harder and harder to find insurance. And there’s a complicated set of reasons that boil down to the fact that the risk is increasing and the prices of insurance have not increased enough to match that increased risk. And we could get into like reinsurance and all these.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We probably will. \u003cem>[laughs] \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> That’s the bottom line. Right? The price doesn’t match the risk. And so the insurers, these people who constantly advertise at you on the radio and on TV trying to get new customers are all of a sudden saying, ‘nah we don’t want new customers anymore because we can’t make a profit in California.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Go ahead, finish.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> So that’s a that’s a huge problem for homeowners. And the legislature tried to get a fix done, didn’t work out at the last minute. And now the governor has stepped in to ask Commissioner Lara, the commissioner of insurance, to take kind of emergency regulatory action to do a lot of the things that were apparently, I mean, I haven’t seen the language, but were apparently a part of the legislative conversation. So to reinterpret the law, which isn’t going to change from this action, but to reinterpret it to allow a law, a set of steps that will hopefully stabilize the insurance situation in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And so why was an executive order necessary? I mean, is this going to do what the legislation might have done if it had passed, or is this sort of a temporary measure?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Well, I think this could be a permanent measure. You know, the executive order directs the insurance commissioner to write regulations. Right? So it doesn’t actually change things yet, but it does give the commissioner, you know, kind of air cover to take steps that are going to be, that are politically controversial. There’s no reason to hide the ball about this, insurance, home insurance costs in California will go up modestly if these steps are taken. What will also occur is that insurance will be available to people in a way that it is currently not. And so it’s not you know, it’s not a question of sort of, you know, is it the price higher or lower? It’s can you even get insurance?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And and there’s a there’s another issue that relates to there’s kind of an insurance of last resort called the FAIR Plan. And the FAIR Plan has gotten itself into real trouble because as people have been kind of ditched by their normal private insurers like State Farm, for example, they have to go to this other plan, which is much more expensive, the coverage is not as good, and that plan is actually undercapitalized. And so if there were to be a big fire in California, which hopefully there will not be, and we’ve had really good luck this year, and let’s hope that luck sticks through October, November, December. But if it were to be a big fire, that plan could essentially go belly up.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: Okay but I mean, what I’m hearing you say is that this was maybe not as legally necessary for the governor to direct this as it was politically expedient for him to sort of direct. So I don’t know, it feels like what the insurance commissioner is being asked to do, he maybe had the power to do already. But as you said, a lot of this stuff is not very popular. And my understanding of it is it might kind of supersede some of the proposition that has, you know, dictated how we do this. So in the past, so you mentioned reinsurance. This is essentially insurance companies, they go and get their coverage covered by bigger companies, bigger insurance companies. There’s also the question of like, how do they model this stuff? Right. So are we looking back in time at what has already happened or are we predicting into the future? Currently, they can’t predict into the future with these algorithms and models, Right. Are they going to be able to do that now? Like, does this just say, hey, go ahead, do these things that before you couldn’t do?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Well, so let me answer your first question first, Marisa, which is, does this change Prop 103? Arguably, it does not. And the commissioner is not allowed to do that. The provisions of Prop 103 are part of the constitution, you can’t just decide by a regulation to modify that. What this does is change how the words in Prop 103 are interpreted. So Prop 103 says set a rate, a cost of insurance for premiums that reflects the risk. In plain language, that’s what it says. So what does that mean? Well, the way it’s been interpreted over the years in the homeowners context is look backward and take the average of the losses over the last 20 years. And that worked fine when losses weren’t increasing rapidly because of climate change. Of course, the governor, and I don’t know if the insurance commissioner is in New York right now for Climate Week, but the governor’s in Climate Week making all kinds of announcements about climate change and how California’s leading. The funny thing is that our insurance system kind of pretends that climate change doesn’t exist, and that’s not workable anymore. And so it’s not so much forward-looking climate models as climate models that estimate the risk today, to the average of the risk over the last two decades. And if you think about it like fire risk in 2003 —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Or even ten years ago.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Or even ten years ago. So we live in a different world and unfortunately and climate change is a big part of it, their are other causes it’s complicated problem. But allowing the insurers to use a model is also something that happens in other kinds of insurance. So, for example, earthquake insurance uses CAT models and that’s been okay for a long time, even after Prop 103. So this is not unprecedented in California, but it’s not traditionally the approach has been taken.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And you mentioned that, you know, rates are going to go up, but it will be available to everybody. Are rates going to go up equally across the board or will people in high risk areas be paying, you know, the bulk of the increase?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> That’s a great question, Scott. And I think the answer is this is more the second than the first. It’s likely that this might California has rates, insurance rates that are among the lowest in the country. And a lot of that, the credit for that is due to Prop 103. And it’s probably the case that these changes will cause rates to go up modestly in low risk areas and more in high risk areas. But what it will mean is you can actually buy insurance in the high risk rates, which is something that is going away very quickly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, which is different than earthquake insurance, because people, if they have loans, are required to have basic homeowner’s, they’re not required to have earthquake. And a lot of people opt out because it’s really expensive. Before we get into that, I mean, you mentioned at the top that there was this attempt at a legislative deal. It did fall apart. There was a conversation taped on a plane that leaked with lobbyists. I mean, there’s a lot of drama around it. But the bottom line is consumer advocates have really been feeling like they’ve been shut out of these conversations. And it feels like if they’re taking this action at the insurance commissioner level to kind of go around or change the way Proposition 103 is interpreted, that feels like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Like, is this about to be a big legal battle?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Well, I think it’s going to depend on how, the skill with which Commissioner Lara and the Department of Insurance can navigate a new regulatory process. So the proof will be in the pudding. I think that the insurers, they’re happy, I imagine, with this announcement. But what they really care about is a regulation that is finalized and survives court challenge because that’s what’s going to affect their business environment, not, you know, a press conference. And so we really have to see, you know, how fast can this get done. Time also matters. The situation is deteriorating rapidly in California. And so if this takes a year or 18 months, that’s too long. So we’ll have to see how fast they can move. And then also what the response of Consumer Watchdog in particular, which is the main consumer advocate and insurance space in California, what their response is.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You were advising Senator Dodd as he tried to pull together a compromise on this in the legislature. Time ran out. Was it because this was a difficult vote politically, or could the various sides not come together on an agreement that they could vote on?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> Well, I’m not privy to the exact internal dynamics of the negotiation that occurred. But what I would say is that this is a super complicated issue and it requires elected officials to take a hard vote. And I think we just ran out of time. You know, it requires a lot of education. And, you know, just like for regular folks, like what is going on, you don’t need to know about re-insurance, you just want your home insurance policy so you can have your mortgage. And the there’s a lot of complication. And the consumer advocates were able to really effectively say, look, this is going to raise insurance costs. So and maybe it’s going to raise insurance costs for people in urban areas to benefit people in rural areas, kind of a two Californias sort of vibe. And that was effective in pulling apart, you know, what would have had to be in the legislature, a two-thirds vote. So I think the decision was taken not to bring this up, not to try to get a two-thirds coalition in the three days that were available at the end of the session.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, you mentioned Consumer Watchdog. They’ve been very critical of Insurance Commissioner Lara. And I know that the insurance companies have also complained about the the speed or lack thereof that the commissioner’s office takes in reviewing rates and approving hikes. Do you have confidence that this office is up to the pretty steep task that you’ve laid out of creating these regulations and kind of doing so in an urgent manner?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> I think it’s a tall order, and the challenge is going to be that there are relatively straightforward ways to issue an emergency regulation that makes these changes. And of course, emergency regulations only last for six months. So as soon as you issue the emergency reg, you then start a process to do the normal regulatory process. I don’t know if Commissioner Lara intends to take that path. Certainly on some of these things, like the inclusion of these catastrophe models in an insurance premium rate setting, he’s wanted to have a much more kind of transparent, sort of a lot more elaborate process, and that will slow down what happens and I think also potentially increase its risk. I don’t know. But, you know, there are real tradeoffs here between speed and kind of allowing everyone to comment on every issue that they think is important.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, to what extent do you see this as a placeholder, You know, something to kind of stabilize the market while the legislature can reconvene next year and pick this back up?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> I think this is more than a placeholder if CDI is successful. But what I would emphasize is that this whole situation is fundamentally unstable because of climate change and the growing risk of wildfire. And the step that we really need to take and that we have not done as effectively as we need to, is to really dramatically reduce the risk that homes burn down in wildfires. And there are known ways to do that. And we’ve done some of them. And, you know, the governor’s team has made a lot of efforts in that space over the last five years, six years, I guess. But there’s a lot more we need to do, especially when it comes to structures and not losing, like not having what happened in Santa Rosa occur or Paradise or Lahaina more recently. And so the real way out of this is a combination of financial engineering, which is what a lot of this is about, and real physical engineering in the world. And we have to do both or there’s no there’s not a long term fix.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And Newsom and Larra can’t do all of that by themselves. A lot of it’s up to the rest of us. That’s Michael Wara, he’s director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. Thank you for unpacking this for us. We really appreciate you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Michael Wara:\u003c/strong> It’s great to talk to both of you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Thanks, Michael.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We are going to take a short break. When we come back, we’ll talk about a Hot Labor Summer at the state capitol. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to the Political Breakdown, I’m Marisa Lagos here with Scott Shafer. Well, the legislature wrapped up its work in Sacramento about a week ago, but not before passing some landmark bills for labor in California. They included higher minimum wages for fast food and health care workers, more paid sick leave for California employees, unemployment for workers on strike and more. It’s all on Governor Newsom’s desk now and here to unpack it with us is KQED labor correspondent Farida Jhabvavla Romero. Farida, thanks for being here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> I’m happy to be here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So we said, you know, the line, Hot Labor Summer, This is not just happening in Sacramento. There’s been labor actions nationally, UAW strike, you know, ongoing Hollywood strikes. Is that what accounts you think for this action? This success in Sacramento, is it this bigger kind of political culture right now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think it definitely has played a big role, just this awareness about the struggles of working people in our state, certainly. And then more pressure, you know, just in the form of strikes or people threatening to strike. And, you know, all of that goes to the high cost of living in the state, but also like bigger trends, like surging inflation, you know, like with the price of groceries going up. And then like we had like the almost record pretty much record gas prices not too long ago. And then, you know, coming out of the pandemic, a lot of discontent. And, you know, workers feeling really disgruntled and underappreciated, especially in sectors like health care you know, and other essential jobs are people felt like they really suffered and they’re not seeing their employers, you know, increase their wages the way they would or improve working conditions. And then there’s just like income inequality. I think a lot of people are just thinking more about that. And, you know, like today there was a new report by the Economic Policy Institute and they say that CEO compensation has really skyrocketed from the 1970s and that now CEOs on average make about 344 times more than what a typical worker makes. And so, you know, those are some big issues that I think legislators are, you know, trying to intervene and take steps on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, and among the big winners in the session, fast food workers, a deal was struck between the legislature and the restaurant industry that’s going to guarantee them a raise of up to $20 an hour from the current 1550. And as part of that deal, a referendum on a new law with even higher, higher hourly wage is going to get pulled. But I’m wondering, you know, from your reporting, who who makes up that population of fast food workers and how big a deal is this for them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that’s it’s a huge deal. And I think it’s something where we saw the industry really, you know, come out and say it was going to cause, you know, they thought it was going to cost them this referendum fight, was going to cost them more than $100 million, you know, And that wasn’t it. There was another bill in the, you know, moving through the legislature that would have made corporations, fast food corporations liable for violations at their franchisees, you know, by their franchisees. And they said that was going to really, you know, change the franchise model. So it was becoming like a tit for tat is the way, you know, some people —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So they had some incentive to come to the table.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, they really did, you know, And so they came out with this deal, which, you know, like your original question, it’s more than 500,000, half a million workers in the state in the industry. A lot of them, you know, we think of them before, you know, it was like teenagers, you know. But now it’s a lot of adult immigrant, you know, people with families and a lot of them women, people of color.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Retirees, even sometimes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And many of them, you know, making pretty close to minimum wage. And I think a union representative was telling me the average is around $16 an hour. So this jumped to $20 an hour is going to be a big, big significant change.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that one is so interesting because it does pull in so many other kind of factors when you think about the referendum process and the leverage that they had there. There was another bill passed that actually allowed it to be pulled off. I think there was threats that they could kind of do some of what they wanted to do with the fast food council through the administration, the governor’s administration. So there was a lot of things happening there. I am curious, though, I feel like some of the other bills are a little more straightforward. Right. So like, let’s talk about unemployment insurance for striking workers. That seems like that’s a big hot potato for the governor. A lot of pushback. I mean, what did you hear in terms of the arguments for it and how realistic do you think it is that we actually see it signed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> I mean, that’s super controversial. I’ll definitely answer your question about, say, you know, it’s very unclear how many striking workers could actually get unemployment benefits because the bill basically just expands eligibility to who can apply for unemployment to people who are on strike for more than two weeks. But you still have to meet all of the other requirements, like proving that you’re looking for work. So it’s unclear to me, at least at this point, you know, how many people will, you know, be able to —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I know EDD is really crack down on that. They’re like doing interviews now with people because of all the fraud we’ve seen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Right, so there’s heightened, you know, vigilance on that. But I mean, the proponents for the bill, what they were saying is that this would send a really clear message, you know, to especially wealthier, bigger companies that they, you know, should come to the table to negotiate in good faith. Because what we saw, especially with the Writers Guild, there were stories about, you know, executives at the studios saying that they were just going to wait out, you know, people until they started losing their homes or couldn’t pay rent. And then they have to come and, you know, bargain, you know, on what they want. So I think it was this concerted effort from the legislature, or at least this wish and this concern that negotiations are not super, you know, protracted and last forever and that both parties come and negotiate in good faith.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It does seem like the governor is maybe laying the groundwork for a veto of that legislation. He was saying in an interview with Politico a couple of weeks ago that the unemployment insurance fund is running kind of low.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. And that was one of the main arguments against it that, you know, California already borrowed billions of dollars from the federal government to keep the unemployment insurance fund solvent and that, you know, employers are paying that because the unemployment insurance fund is funded, is financed with the taxes on employers per employee. And so it just you know, that’s another concern with this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED. I’m Marisa Lagos, here with Scott Shafer We were talking about labor’s big wins in Sacramento this year. This is a fund raising period for KQED Public Radio. So for more information about how to support KQED, go to KQED.org\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Farida, you’ve done a lot of great reporting on wage theft and how well the state labor commission deals with that. There’s been huge backlogs. It seems like, you know, based on what you’ve learned and reported, it seems like that would be a really important thing to be pressing on, if you’re the legislature, make sure that that agency is functioning properly and that there isn’t such a long wait time. Have you seen any movement along those lines that workers who are waiting for some kind of, you know, judgment or answer?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. I mean, it’s a really interesting question. I think there’s just more awareness that, like you said, I mean, there’s this agency, the labor commissioner’s office, and, you know, charged with investigating wage theft and other labor violations. But there’s also Cal/OSHA, you know, like the state regulators on occupational health and safety, which is having the same problems. They’re understaffed and it seems like a lot of the problem is sort of this like bureaucratic internal situation, you know, where the state is, you know, having similar issues to other employers where there’s a labor shortage, you know, their wages may not be as competitive. There’s a big problem, at least from people inside of these agencies, you know what they’re saying with just like the length of time it takes to get, you know, candidates vetted and and hired. So there seems to be a lot of bureaucratic stuff inside the agency that I’m not sure if, like legislation is the way to do it and it seems like that’s maybe lawmakers agree because you don’t see many bills on that. But I do have to say there is an audit. The state auditor is looking at the labor commissioner’s office and a big emphasis of the of the audit, is looking at these processes for why the agency is so understaffed because they have the money. The governor has been giving them more money to hire more people and then what just happens is like the vacancy rate increases or that you know, the proportion of how many positions are filled because actually have more positions available and they’re not able to get people in there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Interesting. All right. Well, I want to hit a couple other bills I know that you’ve been following. One is one by Senator Maria Elena Durazo, who is a big labor leader, which, which if it’s signed, would include about 300,000 domestic workers in workplace health and safety laws. And we’re talking people who generally tend to work for individuals, right? House cleaners, nannies, other care providers. Yeah. So how would that work? Like, what is the bill do and how and would it actually help those domestic workers?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so that’s a really interesting one because domestic workers are completely excluded from California’s workplace safety and health protections that other workers enjoy. And if you go look at the California labor law, they don’t consider domestic work employment. It’s like in the law. And that’s why Cal/OSHA has no jurisdiction over these types of complaints by these workers. And so what the bill would do is sort of like include them, you know, like just with everybody else. But Governor Newsom vetoed a similar bill a couple of years ago because he was concerned about what, you know, the requirements are for employers to keep workers safe. You know, they have to have like this injury illness prevention plan —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And like worker’s comp and other insurance, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> And that it was going to be just too, you know, too difficult, you know, for people who own homes and are employers because they have a nanny, for example. So that’s a balance that we’re going to see, you know, what’s going to happen this year. Since then, the governor did approve a bill that set up this advisory committee to study the issue\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Always a good way to punt\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah like delay a little bit. But now they have, you know, more ammunition in a sense, like the people that support this proposal, because the advisory committee, which included employers, you know, also came up saying that California should get rid of this exclusion of domestic workers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> One of the other bills that the governor is going to have to decide on is allowing the legislative staff to unionize. I would imagine he’ll defer to the legislature on that and probably sign it. And another one that would require a human to be in a truck that is a quote unquote, driverless truck. We’ll have to see what the governor does in that. He’s you know, he’s often been, you know, very sympathetic, I think, to the tech industry. And it does kind of like, yes, it would save a job, but it would also it was kind of stunt that that technology in a way. Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I think these are a lot of a lot of hot potatoes for the governor. I’m curious, we only have like a minute and a half left. Do you think that this bill to expand the number of paid sick days from 3 to 5, is that a hot potato or is that kind of post-COVID it feels like not as controversial.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Yeah, not as big, right? Yeah. I mean, there’s a number of states that have more minimum paid sick days than California, a lot more actually. And so California has sort of fallen behind, you know, in that sense, you know, compared to other states. That bill was originally proposing, seven days of paid sick leave and then on down to five, you know, in negotiations, it is you know, it would be difficult for a lot of small businesses especially is what I’ve heard you know because they do have to front those costs. And there was a really interesting survey of hundreds of small business owners in California where the business owners said, hey, we agree, you know, with having more paid sick days off because we don’t want people to come in and like make us sick or, you know, we want them to recover. But we do need help from the state to pay for it. So, you know, we’ll see what happens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Very short time left, but lots got through the legislature. What would you say, one or two things that you think they may come back with in the in the session? What was left undone? Real quick, if you could?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Um, I don’t know. I can’t think of it at this point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I think it depends on what the governor does or doesn’t sign.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And he can certainly say, Look, we did a whole lot this year and don’t send me anything for a while.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> I don’t think they’re going to stop. No, no, no. These bills are coming.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer: \u003c/strong> A very pro-labor speaker as well, Robert Rivas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And a lot of polling that shows the public supports labor so we’ll see. That was KQED labor correspondent Farida Jhabvala Romero. Thanks for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. We are a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today, the one and only Christopher Beale. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos. We’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11962092/changes-coming-to-californias-property-insurance-marketplace",
"authors": [
"3239",
"255",
"8659"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_22235"
],
"featImg": "news_11962101",
"label": "source_news_11962092"
},
"news_11961241": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11961241",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11961241",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1694786726000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 33544
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1694786726,
"format": "audio",
"title": "Inside California's Landmark Mental Health Reforms",
"headTitle": "Inside California’s Landmark Mental Health Reforms | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the last day of the legislative session, Scott and Marisa head to Sacramento and recap the most controversial bills heading to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. Then, they talk about the governor’s landmark reforms to mental health spending with Dana Williamson, Newsom’s chief of staff, and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. They discuss the history of the Mental Health Services Act, and share their personal connection to the issue and their response to criticisms of the reforms.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey everybody, from KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos. On today’s show, we are up in Sacramento today, where it is the homestretch for this year’s legislative session. There is a midnight deadline looming for final action on dozens of bills.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And who better to join us, Marisa, for that than a couple of movers and shakers at the state Capitol. Dana Williamson, who’s currently chief of staff to Governor Gavin Newsom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, who served as president pro tem of the state Senate before Newsom was governor. We’re going to get their insights on some of the most important developments in Sacramento this year, namely a plan to revamp California’s mental health care system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Exactly. But first of all, Marisa. Yes, as always happens at the end of session, lots of last minute deals, amendments of bills, and still plenty of big issues to be resolved, including, of course, some bills involving labor, housing, taxes, a couple of hundred bills, I think still left. But one of the big resolutions, I guess you could say, that came out this week involving labor and it’s been a very good session for organized labor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hot labor summer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hot labor summer, it’s turning out to be a nice fall as well for them. But the deal struck will raise the pay of fast food workers up to $20 an hour. And it’s going to they’ll be taking off a ballot measure, a referendum on a law signed by the governor that would have been very costly, very nasty. You know, with labor on one side, the fast food industry on the other. And I think this is a great example of how pressure can be brought to bear to bring everybody to the table to get things done and so that the voters don’t have to do it. And I think it’s just a better way of making law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, not to be too in the weeds here, but part of the reason this was possible to make this deal is because the governor already signed a bill this session just a few days ago to allow referendums to be taken off the ballot. This follows the law a few years ago doing the same things with initiatives which Darrell Steinberg, he is mentioning over here without.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Don’t come in yet, we’ll talk to him about that later.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> He wrote that bill originally. But, yeah, I mean, it has really changed that. And now this, has really changed the kind of negotiations we see between often now business groups and the legislature. And the other bill we’ll be watching is this Constitutional Amendment 13 just got sent to Newsom. Okay. I’m going to try to explain this very simply. It essentially says that if a ballot measure would increase the amount of voter approval, that it…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Too late!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I already messed it up.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, I want to come back to the referendum thing because one of the other things that the governor signed is going to change what voters see on the ballot. I think that is huge.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Okay, fine Scott.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> I’m saving you here from going further down that hole.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead of seeing the yes or no on referendums, which can be confusing, and sometimes the proponents or opponents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Because you’re saying yes to overturn a law right now, instead of yes to keeping the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So it’s going to be either keep the law or overturn the law be much clearer. And I think that maybe we’ll see fewer referenda on the ballot because now it’s a little harder to trick voters, honestly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right. I’m just going to skip ACA 13 for now. We’ll talk about it a lot, we talked about it a few weeks ago. It’s going to be a big fight in 2024 over taxes and the threshold it takes to pass them. But a couple other labor bills before we move on. One sent to Newsom will allow lawmakers staff to organize, this is a big priority of former Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who’s now running labor outside of the building. Another would increase from 3 to 5 days the guaranteed sick leave that California workers get. This is in the COVID era.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I’m watching Dana shaking her head, nodding her head, reading the tea leaves here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We’ll see. And then the other big one that is not yet to the governor’s desk could be voted on in the next few hours. Unemployment benefits for striking workers. This is something that really gets under the skin of the business community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, let’s have the employers pay for the workers on strike.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Scott, run us down. There’s a few kind of, I would say more fun bills that are maybe tough calls for the governor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Yeah. Okay. So this one’s been on his desk before and he turned thumbs down. But this is another Scott Weiner attempt to decriminalize magic mushrooms, psychedelic mushrooms, which are used in therapy for PTSD increasingly. There is evidence, actually, that it does work well for depression, PTSD, and some other things. Veterans groups are for it, not surprisingly, law enforcement not so excited about it. So that we’ll see what he does on that. Any indication? No, Dana’s like poker faced. Also, another pot related pot bill the Haney bill to allow he always says allows pot stores to sell muffins and tea which makes it sound so wholesome, which it is, but also have entertainment. Because those clubs are struggling, they’re having a hard time making money.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Cannabis cafes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Oh, look, she’s talking. Who will put her microphone on? Cannabis cafes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, Prop 64, I think was very strict in how it allowed cannabis businesses to operate. This would loosen some of those, and Assemblyman Matt Haney says would really help them out. And then finally, Skittles. A ban on certain additives, including those that are what Skittles use to make those the rainbow of colors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All I’m saying is don’t touch my M&Ms. I don’t care what they do with the Skittles. Okay. We’re going to take a short break. And when we return, we’re going to be joined by Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, former lawmaker, of course, as well. And Dana Williamson, a Capitol veteran who is now Governor Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marissa Largo’s. We’re up in Sacramento, where the legislature is wrapping up its session this week. And who better to talk about the highlights and perhaps the lowlights of the session but a pair of political pros. Sacramento mayor and former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and political strategist Dana Williamson, chief of staff to Governor Newsom. Welcome back, both of you to Political Breakdown, this a repeat visit for both of you, we’re happy to have you. And together.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Thrilled to be here with Dana and together.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You guys have so many titles, jeez.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Well, let’s talk about one of the big issues, of course, that you’re grappling with, the legislature is dealing with has to do with mental health. And it’s part of it as a reform of a bill that you, sir, mayor authored 20 some years ago that was on the ballot, a bill to tax millionaires for money for mental health, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Yes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well before we go into that. And so so now what’s on the table now is to take some of that money and use it for housing for people who are suffering mental illness. Why the change? And then we’ll talk about the other $6 billion bond measure in a minute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> So back in 2004, I was still in the assembly, actually. We had this idea, this idea that we go to the voters to uphold the promise that Governor Reagan and the legislature made back in the 1960s when they shut the state mental hospitals to fund a decent system of community mental health care. And of course, for many decades that promise was unfulfilled. And so we authored and put before the voters Proposition 63, and the voters said yes, 53% of the vote, a tax on on millionaires. The money started at about $700 million. It’s now grown to over $4 billion annually. And it’s one of the largest sources of public mental health funding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The original intent was to ensure that the money went to the people who were the sickest of the sick. It was really a homeless mental health initiative. That was the motivation. Over the course of 20 years, it has done a lot of good. And in fact, I would say with the counties who are sort of a player in all this, because the money goes to them, they have spent the money well, in my opinion. The problem has been up until Gavin Newsom became governor, there was no executive leadership, truth be told, that said, the state needs to set priorities here. If we want the money to be spent on the homeless, mentally ill or people coming in and out of the criminal justice system with serious mental illnesses, then we have to say that. And so that’s the essence of the reform here. And I could not be more pleased, as the original author of the bill, that the governor, Dana, who added a significant piece to this as well, which I’m sure she will talk about, that they have taken the mantle that Susan Eggman and the legislature going forward and that this is going to pass. The voters will say yes again, I’m confident, and then we will have an improved Mental Behavioral Health Services Act in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, as Scott mentioned, though, Dana, this is not just changing the way Prop 63 funds. This is also a $6.3 billion bond with a B. That’s a lot of money, to build treatment beds. Talk about why that’s needed and why hasn’t $4 billion a year been enough? I mean, what is what is the problem you guys are trying to solve here?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Well, if you’re talking about specifically about the bond itself, one of the biggest problems and you can ask anyone, I mean, Darrell’s mayor now, right, and he sees this every day is there aren’t places for people to go. So you end up, folks end up in ERs, they end up in jail. They end up back on the streets. And so this really was that piece that we really needed. And it’s different from what the old state hospitals were, you know, the sort of really institutionalized settings. These are going to be community-based facilities. Some will be buildings that are rebuilt and refurbished, some will be stood up new, and they can take on lots of different forms depending on what a region or community needs. And again, going back to the promises of Ronald Reagan, that was the whole idea, right? We’re going to take people out of state facilities. They’re going to go into their communities, They’re going to get services, but they’re just isn’t capacity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And the mental health problems gotten worse during this time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And it’s changed, too. The nature of it has changed a little bit. But I’m wondering, you know, you mentioned Ronald Reagan, but counties, you know, are using that money well, and some of that money if this passes, if the voters pass it, would get diverted to housing. And counties are concerned that, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars that they would have for services are going to go away. How do you respond to that concern?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Well, several ways. Number one, I go back to the original intent of the Act, which was to house people and to provide the comprehensive services for people living on the streets with serious mental illness. So, this gets back to the original intent. Secondly, the MHSA, as we call it, the reform and the bond is not in isolation. This is now the fifth or sixth year that the governor and the legislature have led on mental health, and they’ve provided a huge number of resources, four plus billion dollars for a youth mental health initiative, what’s called CalAIM, the Medicaid reform where now health care money can be used for a form of wraparound services. And so there’s more resources than ever before. And with this change, now is a catalyst to actually create a system that is coherent and that provides something for everyone depending on what their needs are. That’s the bed thing that Dana was talking about a moment ago. That’s the biggest thing at the local level. We don’t have places for people to go and some people need board and care, some people can live independently, some people need, you know, a more secure facility. Well, this bond together with the MHSA reform, is going to allow us to get a lot more of that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Can I ask, before we get too much further into the weeds of this, like what you both are very passionate about, this is their personal experiences that have made you want to tackle this issue and take it on? I mean, we don’t get you in here, Dana as the chief of staff for every issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> I mean, listen, I think working on this, either you you don’t talk to a single person that hasn’t been touched by mental health issues, whether they’re own personal ones, family members, in their work. So I think you could say it’s personal to most people. I think Darrell’s been very open about his daughter and his own experiences. I had a particularly tough experience with my husband that I learned a lot from. I mean, I was, you know, working for Jerry Brown at the time. And when the incident happened with him, I learned about all the holes in the system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: And you’re a well-resourced person, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson\u003c/strong>: I mean, I could call literally anyone. Darrell will tell you, I was on the phone with Darrell every day. You know and once I step back from when it happened and could look more broadly and and go, okay, wait a minute, like this is crazy. People didn’t know who to call to get help.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And even if they did, the help wasn’t necessarily there in some cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Right, and there’s a there’s another bill that’s in the legislature today, too, that Susan Eggman is also doing that that adds mental health to the conservatorship laws, which I know is controversial. But the difference is, is that right now, either only law enforcement or an E.R. can, you know, take someone in who’s really, really going to harm themselves. But people with a long history of mental health issues doesn’t qualify for that\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Even under the CARE Court legislation? Which we’ll get into in a minute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Well CARE Court is different. That’s a different setup. But this is more just the current laws on the books that are, what, 50 years old?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> 1967.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> They’re old. So there’s that. But the other thing is I learned I mean, it was the beds. I mean, I was on the phone, you know, six hours in a row just trying to find space. So if that’s me and I can literally call anyone and —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: And you have the money to pay for it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson\u003c/strong>: And I had the money to pay for it. All I thought about after the fact was my God, like my neighbor that what do people do?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Mayor, I don’t know if you want to talk about your daughter, feel free to. But I’m also wondering, you are now the mayor and you were in the legislature passing bills and, you know, supporting or opposing things. And I’m wondering, you know, we asked Jerry Brown this question after he had been mayor of Oakland. How do you see what Sacramento does — when I say Sacramento, I mean the capitol — differently now that you’re mayor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Well, first of all, you ask about my daughter. She’s doing great in life, which is a, you know, one of many examples that if we do the right things, that people can get better and live full and productive lives. The other thing personal to me, and I think it’s an important point, is that I introduced my first mental health bills before my family was ever affected by this. People think it’s the other way around, that I was motivated because of my own personal situation, it was the opposite. And it proves the point that this is about everybody, that everybody knows somebody, every family. And what’s happened over 20 years in a good way, not that the stigma is completely busted or over, but oh my God, no one would introduce a mental health bill in the legislature in 2000. And now it is the issue of our time, combined with gubernatorial leadership like we’ve never had before and all of a sudden there is the chance to fulfill that promise from the 1960s.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To answer your question, Scott, I guess the difference is the lawmaking role is to make the law and to provide oversight, but then to move on to your next law. As a mayor, of course, you see the impact not just of the law itself, but on whether or not it is implemented in the way it was originally intended. And that gets back to the Mental Health Services Act, Proposition 63. We believed that we were providing funding for the counties to get out into the streets in these encampments and to provide that wraparound model that was the basis for the initiative. And while, again, the counties have spent the money well, that population has not got nearly enough focus. So the governor says and Senator Eggman says more money for housing for people who are unsheltered or at risk of losing their housing, more money for the wraparound service model that we know works. That’s the right direction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But on the other hand, I mean, we’ve we’ve sort of spelled out that the mental illness crisis does go well beyond visible homelessness and people with very extreme problems. I’m just wondering, are we thinking enough about preventing people from getting to that point? Obviously, you guys have to walk and chew gum at the same time. But I think some critics would say this is only through the prism of homelessness, not through, you know, preventing younger kids from falling into that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Actually a big component of the reforms, the original Prop 63 did include intervention for kids.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Twenty percent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> And that continues with this. Because you’re absolutely right. It’s like get ahead of it, talk about it. You know, make it so that, you know, folks recognize when someone’s struggling and what to do. And there’s resources for that in this as well. So it’s both. And I think to the mayor’s point, what we’re trying to create is a system and it’s not just this package, but it is CalAIM, it is all of the other components to this where all of those services are combined and utilized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, disability rights advocates were very concerned this week when some language was stripped out that would have prevented using money from this for involuntary confinement. And their idea, the notion was it was a bait and switch, last minute, not enough discussion about it. Your response?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Can I take this one first?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> You take this one first. Yes of course.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Listen, we talked to a lot of counties, a lot of advocates, a lot of folks out there, I mean, that had lots of opinions and really based on their city or county or region and it’s different everywhere. But we got a lot of feedback about allowing locked beds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I will say this: my husband would be dead right now if that was not available. So this isn’t about, you know, confining people forever. But sometimes in order for folks to get that immediate treatment, they’ve got to be in a secure facility. If it had been unsecure in my case, he would have run and been gone. So I think you’ve got to kind of take it in perspective.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> First of all, the Mental Health Services Act, we legislatively amended the law when I was in the legislature to allow the money to be used for services regardless of someone’s legal status. So it shouldn’t matter. I mean, somebody needs the services, they need the services. MHSA never paid for the custody part of it or the law enforcement part of it and it still won’t.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here’s what I can assure people: that the coin of the realm will always be voluntary services, because that’s what works best over time. And yet it is a continuum. And so there are people who, you know, often because of drugs, by the way, not just mental illness that are so sick that they’re unable to care for themselves. They are a danger to themselves. And so it is appropriate to use those tools. But so long as the coin of the realm continues to be early intervention and voluntary services with involuntary as a last resort, I think that’s the way the system should be, because in the end, nobody should be living on the streets of California, period. And if we start from that perspective, then you do whatever it takes on either side to make sure they’re not on the street.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You brought up substance abuse. And I think that that is a question probably people in the public might have, which is like, what is the interplay here? Because so much of what we see on the streets can be a combination of these two issues. How does that kind of part of this play into it, given the fentanyl crisis, given what’s happening every day?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, I think “continuum” was the right word here because you have folks that start off and have mental health issues who decide to use drugs and then the substance abuse exacerbates that. You have folks who use drugs that cause mental illness. I mean, it runs with this broad spectrum. Some people are on the streets, but people are doing that in their, you know, in their own lives, too. And they go to the E.R., a family member takes them to the E.R. and there’s ultimately probably three days in the E.R. is not going to be enough. So looking for some other place for folks to get treatment is super important to notice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to the Political Breakdown from KQED. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marisa Lagos. We’re up in Sacramento, where the legislature is making its final push on legislation this year. I should say, we’re taping this in the afternoon, so things may happen between now and midnight. But we’re talking with Governor Newsom’s chief of staff, Dana Williamson, and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. This is a fund raising period for KQED Public Radio. For more information, go to KQED.org\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I want to ask about care courts, which is more than a little bit related to all of this. It was also Susan Eggman was one of the authors of a bill that the governor signed, it passed with huge bipartisan support, will allow more people to sort of steer folks who have addiction and mental illness and living on the streets into treatment. And I’m just wondering, you know, you said a moment ago there aren’t enough beds. And that’s the big concern that counties like San Francisco, which are going to go first, like in October, have. What assurances do you have for these counties that there will be enough beds for these things?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Perhaps a $6 billion bond?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> But that takes a while and the voters have to approve it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> But I will say, I mean, some of these cities they have, they can calibrate in a CARE Court situation, right? You take CARE Court and you’re — okay, this person is going to get treatment and they can go to here. Where the totality of the problem is so much bigger that that’s where the bond comes in and creates this much broader ability to have rooms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So you think there will be enough beds coming October for these counties that are going first?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think so. But Darrell you were a big supporter of this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> I’m a big supporter of CARE Court. Look one of the things we know from history is that the collaborative court model works. That where counties have, and most counties do have mental health courts or substance abuse courts, with a tough and compassionate judge, that this can be a pathway for somebody to get the help and treatment that they would not otherwise get. And so CARE Court to me is just an extension of that. The challenge with collaborative courts has been there’s not enough of them. And so now the administration, the Newsom administration and the legislature said we’re going to invest in more pathways for treatment for people. And CARE Court is one way. It’s a tool, but an important tool.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>You know, I don’t say I’ve changed on this because I’ve always believed that voluntary services are the way to go. But really, when when you when you look at it from a big picture and you ask yourself, what is it going to take to make sure that people are not freezing to death and are being subject to abuse of all kinds out on the streets, the impacts on our communities. Then you say whatever tools it takes and CARE Court, I think is going to be an important and I hope effective tool.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Although to be clear, you’re hoping for the black robe effect, right? You can’t really if people say, after all this, I don’t want to do it, you can’t really force them, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> No.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> No. But you can you can push.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Speaking of pushing, this is going to be on the ballot. You do need to convince voters to pass both of these measures. What do you see as the biggest political hurdles, especially given kind of what you’ve already come through, pushing it through the legislature?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> You know, I’ve actually seen polling on these issues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> No \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> I know you’re totally shocked. And the truth is, it’s unbelievable how across parties, across every single demographic, folks want something done. A lot of things going into this that I thought might be politically hard, weren’t. I think folks are just ready for change. And again, more people are touched by it. More people are talking about it. There are more people on the streets. So it’s just present in everybody’s lives now. So I you know, it should tell you something that we’re not afraid to put this on a March ballot in a competitive presidential primary for the Republican side. And still think it’s going to be okay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> It’s not a new tax. It’s simply updating what is already on the books.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> It’s reform and beds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Quick question, we’re getting to the end, but how are you going to evaluate this? I mean, you know, the bond measure, let’s say it passes, it takes a long time. You got to deal with NIMBYs and, you know, all other kinds of obstacles. I know it’s been streamlined—\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> There’s some streamlining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> But it’s going to take a while in the best of circumstances.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Well, on the reform side, there’s some new accountability measures built in with that about where the money goes and how it’s spent and, you know, audits and all the things. So I do think there’s lots of mechanisms on the reform side. On the bond side, yes, it’s going to take time to do it. We are actually currently, you know, hoping the voters want to support this, of course, looking at locations and, you know, what it would take to build or what it would take to refurbish. So we’re doing all that work now, but we’re hopeful if this passes and the money becomes available, that we can get started quickly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> One of the less high profile parts of the MHC modernization is the requirement that the state and the counties work together on specific outcome measures. And over time, those outcome measures need to drive any future legislation, right? What the people want. People don’t expect a cure. They just want it to be better.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> And they want action. I think that’s the biggest piece of this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Little late breaking information here. The Senate has just given final approval to the bill allowing striking workers to be eligible for unemployment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Here we go.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> That hot potato is heading your way, Dana.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Fantastic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So we’ll see. No doubt there’ll be some other things heading to the governor between now and midnight.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Before we wrap, so I take it the governor will be out campaigning for these?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah. If he were here, he’d tell you this is his biggest priority.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> And I’m joining him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you’re hitting the road, mayor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Do you miss being out, like, statewide, doing stuff?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> I still get around a little bit, but yes, I loved my job as a legislator. I love being mayor, too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It’s a tough job, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Nothing like having the honor of making law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And being in Sacramento gives you a little distance from those constituents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> The mayor and I are coming full circle because I was working for Jerry Brown when he was pro-tem. So, yeah, just a long history.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Musical chairs, musical chairs. Well thank you, guys so much for being here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, thank you both. We know you don’t do these all the time, and to have you both in studio is great.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Happy to do it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Dana Williamson, chief of staff to Governor Newsom and Darrell Steinberg, you have a lot of titles, mayor is the current one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Just Darrell.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Just Darrell. All right, that’ll do it for this edition of Political Breakdown, a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Christopher Beale, our producers is Guy Marzorati. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. Thanks for listening everybody and we’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 5843,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 122
},
"modified": 1700874514,
"excerpt": "Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Governor Newsom's chief of staff Dana Williamson on the changes to mental health spending going before voters in March.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Governor Newsom's chief of staff Dana Williamson on the changes to mental health spending going before voters in March.",
"title": "Inside California's Landmark Mental Health Reforms | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Inside California's Landmark Mental Health Reforms",
"datePublished": "2023-09-15T07:05:26-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:08:34-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "inside-californias-landmark-mental-health-reforms",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC6552496592.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11961241/inside-californias-landmark-mental-health-reforms",
"audioDuration": 1751000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the last day of the legislative session, Scott and Marisa head to Sacramento and recap the most controversial bills heading to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. Then, they talk about the governor’s landmark reforms to mental health spending with Dana Williamson, Newsom’s chief of staff, and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. They discuss the history of the Mental Health Services Act, and share their personal connection to the issue and their response to criticisms of the reforms.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey everybody, from KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos. On today’s show, we are up in Sacramento today, where it is the homestretch for this year’s legislative session. There is a midnight deadline looming for final action on dozens of bills.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And who better to join us, Marisa, for that than a couple of movers and shakers at the state Capitol. Dana Williamson, who’s currently chief of staff to Governor Gavin Newsom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, who served as president pro tem of the state Senate before Newsom was governor. We’re going to get their insights on some of the most important developments in Sacramento this year, namely a plan to revamp California’s mental health care system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Exactly. But first of all, Marisa. Yes, as always happens at the end of session, lots of last minute deals, amendments of bills, and still plenty of big issues to be resolved, including, of course, some bills involving labor, housing, taxes, a couple of hundred bills, I think still left. But one of the big resolutions, I guess you could say, that came out this week involving labor and it’s been a very good session for organized labor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hot labor summer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hot labor summer, it’s turning out to be a nice fall as well for them. But the deal struck will raise the pay of fast food workers up to $20 an hour. And it’s going to they’ll be taking off a ballot measure, a referendum on a law signed by the governor that would have been very costly, very nasty. You know, with labor on one side, the fast food industry on the other. And I think this is a great example of how pressure can be brought to bear to bring everybody to the table to get things done and so that the voters don’t have to do it. And I think it’s just a better way of making law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, not to be too in the weeds here, but part of the reason this was possible to make this deal is because the governor already signed a bill this session just a few days ago to allow referendums to be taken off the ballot. This follows the law a few years ago doing the same things with initiatives which Darrell Steinberg, he is mentioning over here without.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Don’t come in yet, we’ll talk to him about that later.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> He wrote that bill originally. But, yeah, I mean, it has really changed that. And now this, has really changed the kind of negotiations we see between often now business groups and the legislature. And the other bill we’ll be watching is this Constitutional Amendment 13 just got sent to Newsom. Okay. I’m going to try to explain this very simply. It essentially says that if a ballot measure would increase the amount of voter approval, that it…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Too late!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I already messed it up.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, I want to come back to the referendum thing because one of the other things that the governor signed is going to change what voters see on the ballot. I think that is huge.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Okay, fine Scott.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> I’m saving you here from going further down that hole.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead of seeing the yes or no on referendums, which can be confusing, and sometimes the proponents or opponents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Because you’re saying yes to overturn a law right now, instead of yes to keeping the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So it’s going to be either keep the law or overturn the law be much clearer. And I think that maybe we’ll see fewer referenda on the ballot because now it’s a little harder to trick voters, honestly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right. I’m just going to skip ACA 13 for now. We’ll talk about it a lot, we talked about it a few weeks ago. It’s going to be a big fight in 2024 over taxes and the threshold it takes to pass them. But a couple other labor bills before we move on. One sent to Newsom will allow lawmakers staff to organize, this is a big priority of former Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who’s now running labor outside of the building. Another would increase from 3 to 5 days the guaranteed sick leave that California workers get. This is in the COVID era.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I’m watching Dana shaking her head, nodding her head, reading the tea leaves here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We’ll see. And then the other big one that is not yet to the governor’s desk could be voted on in the next few hours. Unemployment benefits for striking workers. This is something that really gets under the skin of the business community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, let’s have the employers pay for the workers on strike.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Scott, run us down. There’s a few kind of, I would say more fun bills that are maybe tough calls for the governor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Yeah. Okay. So this one’s been on his desk before and he turned thumbs down. But this is another Scott Weiner attempt to decriminalize magic mushrooms, psychedelic mushrooms, which are used in therapy for PTSD increasingly. There is evidence, actually, that it does work well for depression, PTSD, and some other things. Veterans groups are for it, not surprisingly, law enforcement not so excited about it. So that we’ll see what he does on that. Any indication? No, Dana’s like poker faced. Also, another pot related pot bill the Haney bill to allow he always says allows pot stores to sell muffins and tea which makes it sound so wholesome, which it is, but also have entertainment. Because those clubs are struggling, they’re having a hard time making money.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Cannabis cafes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Oh, look, she’s talking. Who will put her microphone on? Cannabis cafes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, Prop 64, I think was very strict in how it allowed cannabis businesses to operate. This would loosen some of those, and Assemblyman Matt Haney says would really help them out. And then finally, Skittles. A ban on certain additives, including those that are what Skittles use to make those the rainbow of colors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All I’m saying is don’t touch my M&Ms. I don’t care what they do with the Skittles. Okay. We’re going to take a short break. And when we return, we’re going to be joined by Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, former lawmaker, of course, as well. And Dana Williamson, a Capitol veteran who is now Governor Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marissa Largo’s. We’re up in Sacramento, where the legislature is wrapping up its session this week. And who better to talk about the highlights and perhaps the lowlights of the session but a pair of political pros. Sacramento mayor and former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and political strategist Dana Williamson, chief of staff to Governor Newsom. Welcome back, both of you to Political Breakdown, this a repeat visit for both of you, we’re happy to have you. And together.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Thrilled to be here with Dana and together.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You guys have so many titles, jeez.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Well, let’s talk about one of the big issues, of course, that you’re grappling with, the legislature is dealing with has to do with mental health. And it’s part of it as a reform of a bill that you, sir, mayor authored 20 some years ago that was on the ballot, a bill to tax millionaires for money for mental health, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Yes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well before we go into that. And so so now what’s on the table now is to take some of that money and use it for housing for people who are suffering mental illness. Why the change? And then we’ll talk about the other $6 billion bond measure in a minute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> So back in 2004, I was still in the assembly, actually. We had this idea, this idea that we go to the voters to uphold the promise that Governor Reagan and the legislature made back in the 1960s when they shut the state mental hospitals to fund a decent system of community mental health care. And of course, for many decades that promise was unfulfilled. And so we authored and put before the voters Proposition 63, and the voters said yes, 53% of the vote, a tax on on millionaires. The money started at about $700 million. It’s now grown to over $4 billion annually. And it’s one of the largest sources of public mental health funding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The original intent was to ensure that the money went to the people who were the sickest of the sick. It was really a homeless mental health initiative. That was the motivation. Over the course of 20 years, it has done a lot of good. And in fact, I would say with the counties who are sort of a player in all this, because the money goes to them, they have spent the money well, in my opinion. The problem has been up until Gavin Newsom became governor, there was no executive leadership, truth be told, that said, the state needs to set priorities here. If we want the money to be spent on the homeless, mentally ill or people coming in and out of the criminal justice system with serious mental illnesses, then we have to say that. And so that’s the essence of the reform here. And I could not be more pleased, as the original author of the bill, that the governor, Dana, who added a significant piece to this as well, which I’m sure she will talk about, that they have taken the mantle that Susan Eggman and the legislature going forward and that this is going to pass. The voters will say yes again, I’m confident, and then we will have an improved Mental Behavioral Health Services Act in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, as Scott mentioned, though, Dana, this is not just changing the way Prop 63 funds. This is also a $6.3 billion bond with a B. That’s a lot of money, to build treatment beds. Talk about why that’s needed and why hasn’t $4 billion a year been enough? I mean, what is what is the problem you guys are trying to solve here?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Well, if you’re talking about specifically about the bond itself, one of the biggest problems and you can ask anyone, I mean, Darrell’s mayor now, right, and he sees this every day is there aren’t places for people to go. So you end up, folks end up in ERs, they end up in jail. They end up back on the streets. And so this really was that piece that we really needed. And it’s different from what the old state hospitals were, you know, the sort of really institutionalized settings. These are going to be community-based facilities. Some will be buildings that are rebuilt and refurbished, some will be stood up new, and they can take on lots of different forms depending on what a region or community needs. And again, going back to the promises of Ronald Reagan, that was the whole idea, right? We’re going to take people out of state facilities. They’re going to go into their communities, They’re going to get services, but they’re just isn’t capacity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And the mental health problems gotten worse during this time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And it’s changed, too. The nature of it has changed a little bit. But I’m wondering, you know, you mentioned Ronald Reagan, but counties, you know, are using that money well, and some of that money if this passes, if the voters pass it, would get diverted to housing. And counties are concerned that, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars that they would have for services are going to go away. How do you respond to that concern?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Well, several ways. Number one, I go back to the original intent of the Act, which was to house people and to provide the comprehensive services for people living on the streets with serious mental illness. So, this gets back to the original intent. Secondly, the MHSA, as we call it, the reform and the bond is not in isolation. This is now the fifth or sixth year that the governor and the legislature have led on mental health, and they’ve provided a huge number of resources, four plus billion dollars for a youth mental health initiative, what’s called CalAIM, the Medicaid reform where now health care money can be used for a form of wraparound services. And so there’s more resources than ever before. And with this change, now is a catalyst to actually create a system that is coherent and that provides something for everyone depending on what their needs are. That’s the bed thing that Dana was talking about a moment ago. That’s the biggest thing at the local level. We don’t have places for people to go and some people need board and care, some people can live independently, some people need, you know, a more secure facility. Well, this bond together with the MHSA reform, is going to allow us to get a lot more of that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Can I ask, before we get too much further into the weeds of this, like what you both are very passionate about, this is their personal experiences that have made you want to tackle this issue and take it on? I mean, we don’t get you in here, Dana as the chief of staff for every issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> I mean, listen, I think working on this, either you you don’t talk to a single person that hasn’t been touched by mental health issues, whether they’re own personal ones, family members, in their work. So I think you could say it’s personal to most people. I think Darrell’s been very open about his daughter and his own experiences. I had a particularly tough experience with my husband that I learned a lot from. I mean, I was, you know, working for Jerry Brown at the time. And when the incident happened with him, I learned about all the holes in the system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: And you’re a well-resourced person, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson\u003c/strong>: I mean, I could call literally anyone. Darrell will tell you, I was on the phone with Darrell every day. You know and once I step back from when it happened and could look more broadly and and go, okay, wait a minute, like this is crazy. People didn’t know who to call to get help.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And even if they did, the help wasn’t necessarily there in some cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Right, and there’s a there’s another bill that’s in the legislature today, too, that Susan Eggman is also doing that that adds mental health to the conservatorship laws, which I know is controversial. But the difference is, is that right now, either only law enforcement or an E.R. can, you know, take someone in who’s really, really going to harm themselves. But people with a long history of mental health issues doesn’t qualify for that\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Even under the CARE Court legislation? Which we’ll get into in a minute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Well CARE Court is different. That’s a different setup. But this is more just the current laws on the books that are, what, 50 years old?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> 1967.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> They’re old. So there’s that. But the other thing is I learned I mean, it was the beds. I mean, I was on the phone, you know, six hours in a row just trying to find space. So if that’s me and I can literally call anyone and —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: And you have the money to pay for it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson\u003c/strong>: And I had the money to pay for it. All I thought about after the fact was my God, like my neighbor that what do people do?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Mayor, I don’t know if you want to talk about your daughter, feel free to. But I’m also wondering, you are now the mayor and you were in the legislature passing bills and, you know, supporting or opposing things. And I’m wondering, you know, we asked Jerry Brown this question after he had been mayor of Oakland. How do you see what Sacramento does — when I say Sacramento, I mean the capitol — differently now that you’re mayor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Well, first of all, you ask about my daughter. She’s doing great in life, which is a, you know, one of many examples that if we do the right things, that people can get better and live full and productive lives. The other thing personal to me, and I think it’s an important point, is that I introduced my first mental health bills before my family was ever affected by this. People think it’s the other way around, that I was motivated because of my own personal situation, it was the opposite. And it proves the point that this is about everybody, that everybody knows somebody, every family. And what’s happened over 20 years in a good way, not that the stigma is completely busted or over, but oh my God, no one would introduce a mental health bill in the legislature in 2000. And now it is the issue of our time, combined with gubernatorial leadership like we’ve never had before and all of a sudden there is the chance to fulfill that promise from the 1960s.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To answer your question, Scott, I guess the difference is the lawmaking role is to make the law and to provide oversight, but then to move on to your next law. As a mayor, of course, you see the impact not just of the law itself, but on whether or not it is implemented in the way it was originally intended. And that gets back to the Mental Health Services Act, Proposition 63. We believed that we were providing funding for the counties to get out into the streets in these encampments and to provide that wraparound model that was the basis for the initiative. And while, again, the counties have spent the money well, that population has not got nearly enough focus. So the governor says and Senator Eggman says more money for housing for people who are unsheltered or at risk of losing their housing, more money for the wraparound service model that we know works. That’s the right direction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But on the other hand, I mean, we’ve we’ve sort of spelled out that the mental illness crisis does go well beyond visible homelessness and people with very extreme problems. I’m just wondering, are we thinking enough about preventing people from getting to that point? Obviously, you guys have to walk and chew gum at the same time. But I think some critics would say this is only through the prism of homelessness, not through, you know, preventing younger kids from falling into that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Actually a big component of the reforms, the original Prop 63 did include intervention for kids.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Twenty percent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> And that continues with this. Because you’re absolutely right. It’s like get ahead of it, talk about it. You know, make it so that, you know, folks recognize when someone’s struggling and what to do. And there’s resources for that in this as well. So it’s both. And I think to the mayor’s point, what we’re trying to create is a system and it’s not just this package, but it is CalAIM, it is all of the other components to this where all of those services are combined and utilized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, disability rights advocates were very concerned this week when some language was stripped out that would have prevented using money from this for involuntary confinement. And their idea, the notion was it was a bait and switch, last minute, not enough discussion about it. Your response?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Can I take this one first?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> You take this one first. Yes of course.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Listen, we talked to a lot of counties, a lot of advocates, a lot of folks out there, I mean, that had lots of opinions and really based on their city or county or region and it’s different everywhere. But we got a lot of feedback about allowing locked beds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I will say this: my husband would be dead right now if that was not available. So this isn’t about, you know, confining people forever. But sometimes in order for folks to get that immediate treatment, they’ve got to be in a secure facility. If it had been unsecure in my case, he would have run and been gone. So I think you’ve got to kind of take it in perspective.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> First of all, the Mental Health Services Act, we legislatively amended the law when I was in the legislature to allow the money to be used for services regardless of someone’s legal status. So it shouldn’t matter. I mean, somebody needs the services, they need the services. MHSA never paid for the custody part of it or the law enforcement part of it and it still won’t.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here’s what I can assure people: that the coin of the realm will always be voluntary services, because that’s what works best over time. And yet it is a continuum. And so there are people who, you know, often because of drugs, by the way, not just mental illness that are so sick that they’re unable to care for themselves. They are a danger to themselves. And so it is appropriate to use those tools. But so long as the coin of the realm continues to be early intervention and voluntary services with involuntary as a last resort, I think that’s the way the system should be, because in the end, nobody should be living on the streets of California, period. And if we start from that perspective, then you do whatever it takes on either side to make sure they’re not on the street.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You brought up substance abuse. And I think that that is a question probably people in the public might have, which is like, what is the interplay here? Because so much of what we see on the streets can be a combination of these two issues. How does that kind of part of this play into it, given the fentanyl crisis, given what’s happening every day?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, I think “continuum” was the right word here because you have folks that start off and have mental health issues who decide to use drugs and then the substance abuse exacerbates that. You have folks who use drugs that cause mental illness. I mean, it runs with this broad spectrum. Some people are on the streets, but people are doing that in their, you know, in their own lives, too. And they go to the E.R., a family member takes them to the E.R. and there’s ultimately probably three days in the E.R. is not going to be enough. So looking for some other place for folks to get treatment is super important to notice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to the Political Breakdown from KQED. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marisa Lagos. We’re up in Sacramento, where the legislature is making its final push on legislation this year. I should say, we’re taping this in the afternoon, so things may happen between now and midnight. But we’re talking with Governor Newsom’s chief of staff, Dana Williamson, and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. This is a fund raising period for KQED Public Radio. For more information, go to KQED.org\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I want to ask about care courts, which is more than a little bit related to all of this. It was also Susan Eggman was one of the authors of a bill that the governor signed, it passed with huge bipartisan support, will allow more people to sort of steer folks who have addiction and mental illness and living on the streets into treatment. And I’m just wondering, you know, you said a moment ago there aren’t enough beds. And that’s the big concern that counties like San Francisco, which are going to go first, like in October, have. What assurances do you have for these counties that there will be enough beds for these things?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Perhaps a $6 billion bond?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> But that takes a while and the voters have to approve it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> But I will say, I mean, some of these cities they have, they can calibrate in a CARE Court situation, right? You take CARE Court and you’re — okay, this person is going to get treatment and they can go to here. Where the totality of the problem is so much bigger that that’s where the bond comes in and creates this much broader ability to have rooms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So you think there will be enough beds coming October for these counties that are going first?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think so. But Darrell you were a big supporter of this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> I’m a big supporter of CARE Court. Look one of the things we know from history is that the collaborative court model works. That where counties have, and most counties do have mental health courts or substance abuse courts, with a tough and compassionate judge, that this can be a pathway for somebody to get the help and treatment that they would not otherwise get. And so CARE Court to me is just an extension of that. The challenge with collaborative courts has been there’s not enough of them. And so now the administration, the Newsom administration and the legislature said we’re going to invest in more pathways for treatment for people. And CARE Court is one way. It’s a tool, but an important tool.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>You know, I don’t say I’ve changed on this because I’ve always believed that voluntary services are the way to go. But really, when when you when you look at it from a big picture and you ask yourself, what is it going to take to make sure that people are not freezing to death and are being subject to abuse of all kinds out on the streets, the impacts on our communities. Then you say whatever tools it takes and CARE Court, I think is going to be an important and I hope effective tool.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Although to be clear, you’re hoping for the black robe effect, right? You can’t really if people say, after all this, I don’t want to do it, you can’t really force them, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> No.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> No. But you can you can push.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Speaking of pushing, this is going to be on the ballot. You do need to convince voters to pass both of these measures. What do you see as the biggest political hurdles, especially given kind of what you’ve already come through, pushing it through the legislature?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> You know, I’ve actually seen polling on these issues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> No \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> I know you’re totally shocked. And the truth is, it’s unbelievable how across parties, across every single demographic, folks want something done. A lot of things going into this that I thought might be politically hard, weren’t. I think folks are just ready for change. And again, more people are touched by it. More people are talking about it. There are more people on the streets. So it’s just present in everybody’s lives now. So I you know, it should tell you something that we’re not afraid to put this on a March ballot in a competitive presidential primary for the Republican side. And still think it’s going to be okay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> It’s not a new tax. It’s simply updating what is already on the books.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> It’s reform and beds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Quick question, we’re getting to the end, but how are you going to evaluate this? I mean, you know, the bond measure, let’s say it passes, it takes a long time. You got to deal with NIMBYs and, you know, all other kinds of obstacles. I know it’s been streamlined—\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> There’s some streamlining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> But it’s going to take a while in the best of circumstances.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Well, on the reform side, there’s some new accountability measures built in with that about where the money goes and how it’s spent and, you know, audits and all the things. So I do think there’s lots of mechanisms on the reform side. On the bond side, yes, it’s going to take time to do it. We are actually currently, you know, hoping the voters want to support this, of course, looking at locations and, you know, what it would take to build or what it would take to refurbish. So we’re doing all that work now, but we’re hopeful if this passes and the money becomes available, that we can get started quickly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> One of the less high profile parts of the MHC modernization is the requirement that the state and the counties work together on specific outcome measures. And over time, those outcome measures need to drive any future legislation, right? What the people want. People don’t expect a cure. They just want it to be better.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> And they want action. I think that’s the biggest piece of this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Little late breaking information here. The Senate has just given final approval to the bill allowing striking workers to be eligible for unemployment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Here we go.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> That hot potato is heading your way, Dana.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Fantastic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So we’ll see. No doubt there’ll be some other things heading to the governor between now and midnight.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Before we wrap, so I take it the governor will be out campaigning for these?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah. If he were here, he’d tell you this is his biggest priority.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> And I’m joining him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you’re hitting the road, mayor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Do you miss being out, like, statewide, doing stuff?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> I still get around a little bit, but yes, I loved my job as a legislator. I love being mayor, too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It’s a tough job, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Nothing like having the honor of making law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And being in Sacramento gives you a little distance from those constituents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> The mayor and I are coming full circle because I was working for Jerry Brown when he was pro-tem. So, yeah, just a long history.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Musical chairs, musical chairs. Well thank you, guys so much for being here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, thank you both. We know you don’t do these all the time, and to have you both in studio is great.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Dana Williamson:\u003c/strong> Happy to do it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Dana Williamson, chief of staff to Governor Newsom and Darrell Steinberg, you have a lot of titles, mayor is the current one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Darrell Steinberg:\u003c/strong> Just Darrell.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Just Darrell. All right, that’ll do it for this edition of Political Breakdown, a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Christopher Beale, our producers is Guy Marzorati. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. Thanks for listening everybody and we’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11961241/inside-californias-landmark-mental-health-reforms",
"authors": [
"255",
"3239"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_596",
"news_22235"
],
"featImg": "news_11961270",
"label": "news_33544"
},
"news_11960420": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11960420",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11960420",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1694137819000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1694137819,
"format": "audio",
"title": "Reggie Jones-Sawyer on the Fentanyl Crisis, Retail Theft and His 'New Journey'",
"headTitle": "Reggie Jones-Sawyer on the Fentanyl Crisis, Retail Theft and His ‘New Journey’ | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, talks to Marisa and Guy Marzorati about his uncle Jefferson Thomas and the Little Rock Nine, Proposition 47 and retail theft, his response to the fentanyl crisis, reparations for Black Californians, how he learned self-forgiveness and his “new journey” after a near-death experience.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey everyone, from KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown, I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati in for Scott Shafer, and today on the Breakdown, lawmakers are entering their final week of the legislative session. We’re in Sacramento to sit down with one of the committee chairs who has arguably received the most attention and scrutiny this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Los Angeles Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer is here with us in studio. His district includes South Central L.A. and he’s chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where much of the hotly debated criminal justice and fentanyl-related legislation met its fate this year. We’re going to talk with him about how his life has informed his leadership here in Sacramento. Assemblymember, welcome to the Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Great to be here this morning, thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, thanks for being here. You know, we would like to talk a little bit about your life before we get into your policymaking, because I think it’s really informed how you have governed. I know you were born in Little Rock, Arkansas, where your family had a pretty deep history. Tell us a little bit about your family there and their kind of involvement in the civil rights movement, really.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So I usually tell the story of when I finally got to college, I was having a really, really good time. I’m talking about a really good time. I’m talking academic probation, good time and about to get kicked out of USC. And I had to go sit at the foot of my grandmother, and my grandmother would have a ladle in her hand. If it was in her left hand she wanted to talk, if it was in her right hand that meant the beatings were going to start. And I started telling her because she didn’t graduate from elementary school. And I try to tell her, you know, she’s talking about her national champions. I’m going to this fancy school. I’m you know, I’m in a fraternity and everything. So the ladle went from the left hand to the right hand. That meant “shut up.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so she told me the story and she said, Look, when you were a baby, I was born in 1957, the same time my uncle was entering Little Rock Central High School with the Little Rock Nine, who were trained in nonviolence with Martin Luther King and Reverend Lawson. And she said she got a phone call one day while she was cooking and a voice was from the Klan. And the Ku Klux Klan told her to get her son out of school or your grandson will never make it to school. She said “That grandson was you. You have absolutely no right to give up this education. And in fact, you had to leave Arkansas because we knew something was better for you away from here.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Wow\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Ever since then, I was on the dean’s list, and I never look back. And so I attribute that to them telling me those stories about being able to change history. And if you talk to any one of the Little Rock Nine during that time, they just wanted to go to school.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> They were kids.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> They were kids. Think about it, they were 15, 16 years old. They had to send the 101st Airborne down to protect them, to go to school every day. They were kicked. They were beaten. They were called the N-word almost every day. And they had to endure it for a year. And there’s a picture of my uncle standing next to a fence post where they forgot to pick him up one day, and the group of kids surrounded him and started, you know, needling him and giving me a hard time. And there’s a famous picture of him standing by this lamp post. And across the street, you can see all the racists yelling at him. And he’s not moving. He’s not moving at all. And my when they finally got to him, they realized he was in shock because they surrounded him. When I asked him, how did you survive it? And he said, “I never gave them any hate back. I never let them give me any fear.” And he said there was a kid there that came over and said, “Leave him alone.” And everybody dispersed. The next day, he said, “Hey, why did you why did you come help me? Must be really Christian person. It was really great.” And the guy said, “Well, my family is atheist. I just did it because it was the right thing to do.” And ever since then, I realize no matter what the controversy is, just do the right thing and things will work out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I mean, I can imagine not just the toll him but on his family, siblings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, my mother. Another story I’ll tell you real quick. My mother, I remember, I asked her what she’d do during that time because they’re eight kids and everybody had a job. And she said, “I washed your uncle’s shirt every night.” And I made, you know, you know, 15, 14 years old. “That means you didn’t do anything.” And my uncle heard me grab it by the scruff of my neck. And he said, “Let me tell you something. Every day I went to school, somebody either picked something on me, urinated on me, took a marker on this white shirt. Every night your mother stayed up all night to make sure that shirt was white as it could be. She bleached it, she did everything she could. So when I went back every day, they saw me in the same white shirt, clean as a whistle. And that was my flag to say, you’re never going to stop me no matter what you do. You can’t stop me. Your mother did that. That was her job. Your mother probably had a more important thing to do in this struggle than anybody else.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, you mentioned that you did end up at USC, but I know before that, even after moving to L.A., you had a tough childhood. You’ve talked about that your mother was abused by your father. Can you just tell us a little bit about, you know, your experiences as a kid and kind of what you what you carried with you from those?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> I’ve learned that a lot of things that happen to young people when you’re traumatized. And that’s why I do a lot of work of getting money for people with childhood trauma so they can get beyond it. Many don’t. And they end up in the criminal justice system because of early childhood trauma. And so living in the projects, you see some things that no young kid should ever see. And whether or not a domestic violence that my mother experienced, that our family experienced, you know, I was molested as a kid with a babysitter. My uncle was stabbed seven times in front of his family members and killed in front of my aunt. And I have an uncle, not an uncle, but a cousin who was transgender and which we didn’t know what that was back then. So Julius became Jules and was going through the procedure. And one day somebody killed Jules and violated that body that they had. And I mean all of that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> How did you kind of make it out of that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So one of the things that I think really helped is I for some reason I got involved with a mental health professional who, as we went through a lot of the pain and the hurt and talked through it, one, I realized none of it was my fault. And I took a lot of blame onto myself, that to know that that, you know, there are some things I heard as far as the domestic violence that I did. I was so, you know, you’re six or five years old. I wanted to go help my mother, but I was in shock and I didn’t do anything. And so I always carried that guilt. There were things that happened with my uncles that I wanted to do something, but I couldn’t do anything. Again, I had that guilt and I wanted to lash out and that anger was in me. They taught me to not only release it, but to talk about it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But I still never really talked about it in public, I think for a lot of African-Americans, especially African-Americans in my community, especially African-American males, we don’t talk about the pain and hurt that we experience. And I’m noticing that even with in my work with public safety, there are a lot of people, firefighters, police officers, prison guards and others that experience some of the most horrendous types of scenes that you could possibly deal with and they’re not releasing or feeling a place that they can get released at. Some of us use substance, substance abuse. And that’s why you see so much out there on the street, substance abuse because we’re not able to heal ourselves. You know, when you have a mental crisis, it’s not like having a cold. Then you go get some cough medicine or somebody give you a shot to help you cure yourself. This is something that you can’t see but you but it just as damaging anything else. Stress is a killer like you wouldn’t believe. Yeah, and I don’t think people understand that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Do you see at all your path in public service that you ended up pursuing as a way to take action, a way to take back kind of empowerment and a way to kind of take forward the experiences that you went through as a child?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So I don’t know how I got here. I kind of do, but I really don’t know. On December 22nd, 2022, I had a minor operation and I died. I literally died and I was brought back to life by the nurses who took quick action. During that time I saw a lot of things. I was out for about 4 hours and when I finally came to, I saw my family around me and I asked them, you know, only takes — it was a one day operation and it only takes one of you to drive the car. Why is everybody around me? And that’s when they told me I had passed away. One of the things I tell people is I was able to see my five-year-old grandson graduate from college. And one of the things that I saw, I saw a lot of things and it made it clear why I am here right now, that there’s some things that I need to do. There were some challenges that I’m meeting now that I actually saw during that time, that if I had said something, I think people thought I would think I was a little nuts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I mean, there’s we have a history of people who experience life and death situations and they come back and tell you what they saw and people kind of look at you funny. Well as somebody that’s been through that, I believe that sometimes God has a way of saying, “I need to talk to you for a little bit.” Because when I went back to my hospital and said, Why did I die? Why did I have a cardiac arrest? I had a cardiac arrest on the 22nd? What caused it? And to this day, nobody knows how it cause it. But when I went to went to my church and they pointed up to the sky and said, I know, they said “God just needed to talk to you for a little bit.” And right after that, I’m starting this new journey of why I need to to do more, to not only help my people, but to make sure that everyone has a society that works best for them. And for the first time, I realize I’m in a position to really kind of help people, especially disadvantaged people, especially homeless people, especially people who don’t have a voice. That’s why I’m here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Alright, hold it there. We’re going to take a very short break and when we come back we’ll continue talking to L.A. Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown, I’m Marisa Lagos here this week with Guy Marzorati. We are talking with Los Angeles Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer. So we mentioned you had a pretty traumatic childhood. You ended up at USC. I know you spent time working in college at the morgue during the crack epidemic, and then you go on to work in L.A. city government for decades. And I kind of want to jump forward because we only have so much time. You were elected to the Assembly in 2012, and this was really right after the Supreme Court had ordered the state to lower its prison population. Lawmakers and the governor were really grappling with how to do that, how to do that while ensuring public safety. And you end up getting tapped to work on the Public Safety Committee pretty soon after to lead it. How did that kind of come to be and was that something that you welcomed or thought you might be doing when you got up here? I know you ran on more of the kind of economic job creation platform.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Yes. And as I worked for the city for 25 years, I did real estate. I ended up Director of Real Estate when I retired from the city. And so when I first got here, I wanted to change the criminal justice system from the courts. And so I decided that since they were during the time when we didn’t have any money, we had kind of. It’s about $1,000,000,000 that the court system was in the hole. And so I made a concerted effort to restore that money. But I wanted to restore that money so that they would have diversion programs and they would have drug courts and juvenile courts and homeless courts and courts that it would help people divert from the prison population. And when I first started, the judges told me that I couldn’t do that. That one, I wasn’t a lawyer. I didn’t know what I was talking about. And I said, Well, that’s fine. But right now I’m in charge of the purse strings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Do you want to get out of this deficit or not?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> And so I worked really hard over two or the next five years, one to restore that billion dollars so they could run efficiently. So people would have access to justice from the criminal justice system. But at that time, we had three strikes. We had sentences that were predetermined no matter what happened. Judges could only do that. And so we started to move the courts to where judges were able to actually look at the holistic individual and figure out a way what is best for, say, public safety. And then they make the decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You’ve had a decade now in the legislature, I think seven years chairing this public safety committee. Where would you point to as kind of, maybe your greatest mark on public safety, on the criminal legal system in California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So when we looked at ways we can ensure that people didn’t recidivate and lowering the number of people who recidivate back into prison, we made a conscious effort to make sure that they were trained, they had jobs, better educated, got off of drugs, and if they had mental health problems when we started to focus like a laser on those things, there are fewer and fewer people coming back into prison, because it was like a revolving door. And so the prison population obviously ballooned to about 160,000, now it’s about 96,000 people who are incarcerated. That means we have an opportunity to close prisons. And this year, I asked that two of the savings, or two of the prisons that the governor is closing will result in $230 million of annual savings that I want to plow it back into programs that help people with mental health in the communities that better education Boys and Girls Clubs on Saturday night basketball, things that keep kids out of out of problem areas so that we don’t refill the prisons again and that we have productive citizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, and I think if you look at the data, I’m looking at recent numbers from the money that’s been saved from Prop 47, one of the reforms, the recidivism rates are just so low if people actually complete these programs. But as you know, there was a lot of reforms that happened. Realignment, Prop 47, three strikes reform, Prop 57. And there’s been some backlash. And I just wonder, is there any argument we went too far too fast? When you talk to people who are worried about public safety these days, do you ever feel like, okay, maybe we, you know, should have been a little bit slower on some of these changes?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So we went too far too fast when we did three strikes and other things and then we’re trying to adjust.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You mean the tough-on-crime era?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> The tough-on-crime era and when you do an adjustment because there is no law that is perfect. And like I usually tell people, and I’m an elected official, so I can say this. It’s never legislation. It’s always implementation. And so if we had implemented it to its fullest, if we had people totally involved in making sure it got corrected, we would not be in the situation where — the example I will give you, I did AB 1065 organized retail theft, that was done 2018. That little small unit of CHP and DOJ have resulted in $30 million brought back over 1800 convictions or places where they’ve actually arrested people. Been unbelievably successful. We did that with Jerry Brown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Then when Governor Gavin Newsom looked at the statistics, he gave it another $200 million to expand it because it was so successful. And now when you actually look at the number of people who are being arrested now on a smash and grab, it’s based on the organized retail theft law that I instituted. And what it does is, it charges people with felonies so that they not only get several years in jail, but Attorney General Bonta is also charging them with federal crimes which could get up to 20 years in jail. So that way you go after the organizers of it and get them off the street. But you still have an opportunity to deal with people who you can give some services to. That’s the kind of combination we needed to do, and we needed to spread it and expand it to make Prop 47 better. That’s where we’re at. We got to make Prop 47 better and not eliminate it. That’s the struggle right now. It’s either ying or yang.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Because there is this sense, and I think, in large part driven by viral videos, that sense of lawlessness or that you could get away with shoplifting. How do you respond to those kind of criticisms?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> It’s difficult. One of my early political mentors once told me “perception is reality.” The chief of police of LAPD, Los Angeles police department can tell you every day that violent crime is down. He can tell you that crime is down. But if you see those videos on TV, you feel—\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What do you feel?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And then the other thing that which I think is also distressing that we have to come to grips with, that there’s a racial aspect to it. So when you see homeless people out on the street and, you know, you see African-American homeless people out in the street, there are people who are not African-Americans who then are fearful of black people anyway, clutching their purses when they get on the elevator. And then that’s exacerbated when you walk out every day and you see a homeless person out there. And so that just that subconsciously is giving the impression that everything is worse. How many times do you hear that because of the homeless situation, “This looks like a third world country,” and statements like that. And so we’ve really got to come to grips with our own, what we feel and just try to focus like a laser on how to resolve that, because that that’s part of it. Because perception is really reality for a lot of people.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I want to ask you really quickly before we talk about fentanyl, the other law that got passed to kind of tweak 47 was to allow folks to aggregate charges, DAs to aggregate charges, right? So that if you are a repeat, you know, shoplifter, even if you’re not part of a big ring, you can get charged with a felony, even if the dollar amount, you know, doesn’t get to that felony threshold. I’ve been doing some research. I have not been able to find any examples of this law being used. One DA says he’s never had police present that sort of case. Others have told me they think it’s just difficult for law enforcement to build these cases. What’s your response to that kind of, you know, reaction? Because we hear a lot of kind of hating on 47 from law enforcement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Right. And that’s been, that’s been a real problem. And that’s why I talk about, for example, on fentanyl I said we need to unite the fight on fentanyl. We need to unite the fight against criminals, to unite to fight to protect citizens, because we can’t pull it all together. Collaboration is the only way we’re going to ultimately be able to get this done. If law enforcement is not doing a job because they think Prop 47 is preventing them, when in fact we do have laws on the books that they can, think about it: If the attorney general and the CHP can aggregate and do it, that means other law enforcement officers can do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We need to put down all the rhetoric and then come together to get this done. No one, no one Republican, Democrat, moderate, progressive, no one wants to get let criminals get away with anything. And that is a fallacy whatsoever. And so there are laws on the books that you can actually prosecute. When I hear from a business owner that says, “I see someone in my store, I call the police. Three hours later, they show up and said they don’t really come to these because of Prop 47.” Well, that’s not true. If you catch somebody in your store burglarizing it, you can prosecute them and you can prosecute to the fullest. So somehow we’ve got to have a collaborative conversation to where we’re all working together to do what we need to do to to give people a perception that criminals are being prosecuted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I want to ask about fentanyl. There’s been a number of bills that moved through the Public Safety Committee this year dealing with increasing sentencing for dealing fentanyl that were voted down, some of them even brought by Democrats. And I wonder, you know, in Sacramento, you often get bills that get kind of a courtesy ‘aye’ vote in committee. Members might not completely support the idea, but they want to see the bill move forward. They want to see negotiations or kind of compromise continue. Why did you feel, I guess, that those bills were legislatively irredeemable? They couldn’t move past your committee.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So when those bills come up, the committee as a whole try to figure out a way so that they can pass. It is usually up to the author whether or not they accept amendments. Probably 90% of the time, maybe close to 100% of the time, the reason they don’t get out is because they refuse any kind of amendments. They want it to go through purely as the way it is. There is no legislation that doesn’t have some kind of change so that we can move forward with it. And so even when we don’t vote on something, meaning if some of the legislation that goes through where the committee does a no vote, they just don’t vote at all. That means they want to do more research and look at it and then hopefully it’ll get passed in January. Well, that was looked upon as a no vote. It’s not a no vote. It’s look, let’s get back past the rhetoric, let’s get past the politics in the press and let’s get into the policy of what we really need to do. Because once you get to the root of what you’re trying to solve, because that’s what we —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, what do you think we need to do around fentanyl? I mean, it is a crisis. It’s horrific what’s happening.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Well we have a $5 billion bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, tell us about that. That we, the Democrats, put together a group of law enforcement, medical professionals, psychiatrists, drug abuse specialists. They all came together and we had a hearing. And whether it was a judge, a DA, law enforcement, each of them said we needed a public health solution to fentanyl and that tough-on-crime measures did not work. So I believe we could stop the opioid epidemic if we had better education, we went to the schools. Also making sure we had Narcan. That’s what my bond does, make sure we had Narcan in every school or in places so we can stop the overdose, especially in Skid Row, where my district is that we can stop it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And so this bond, November 2024, that’s what you’re pushing for, is that right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Yes. We were trying to get it on, obviously wanted to get it on the March.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But the governor has other things going on\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> There was a bigger name\u003cem> [laughs]\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> We’re running short on time. The last thing we want to ask you about is reparations. You were involved on the task force multiyear process, came out with the final report this summer. It sounds like most of the legislative action is probably going to happen starting next year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Correct.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Bills getting introduced that came ideas from the report. If we’re sitting here in a year, what does success look like to you on reparations over the course of the next year?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> And so the main the two main people who are going to be involved in it is Senator Steven Bradford and myself, we ill be pushing both legislative and budgetary recommendations moving forward through both houses and to the Governor. For us, with this being our last year, obviously we would like to get everything done, but we’re going to try to get as much done as possible, knowing the reality may be a multiyear process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Of course, yeah.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer\u003c/strong>: But we’ve got to at least set up the initial parameters, especially the easy things, like an apology letter should not be something that’s ultimately controversial. Looking at ways we can ensure that that African-Americans, especially young kids, can get into higher education. The law school at UCLA, the numbers are abysmal. If we just worked real hard to figure out a way we can get more and more of our kids there, and then we’re really seriously looking at innovative ways to be able to close the wealth gap. And it’s even harder now with the housing crisis and the housing being so expensive. But that is, if you look at what is the wealth gap between white and African Americans it is the home. And if we can start to own land, then we can go to the next step. Owning a business or stocks and bonds. But it’s a gradual thing. But the first thing we got to start is financial literacy and being able to get people to start to own and buy homes and remove those barriers from us being able to access property.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: All right. We’re going to have to leave it there. Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, thanks for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Appreciate your time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer\u003c/strong>: All right, thank you. Thank you both, this was great.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: That’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown, we’re a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati\u003c/strong>: Our engineers today are Brendan Willard and Christopher Beale, I’m Guy Marzorati.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: And I’m Marisa Lagos. We’ll see you next week.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 5341,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 65
},
"modified": 1700874520,
"excerpt": "The Los Angeles Assemblymember also previews the path ahead for reparations for Black Californians.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The Los Angeles Assemblymember also previews the path ahead for reparations for Black Californians.",
"title": "Reggie Jones-Sawyer on the Fentanyl Crisis, Retail Theft and His 'New Journey' | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Reggie Jones-Sawyer on the Fentanyl Crisis, Retail Theft and His 'New Journey'",
"datePublished": "2023-09-07T18:50:19-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:08:40-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "reggie-jones-sawyer-on-the-fentanyl-crisis-retail-theft-and-his-new-journey",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC7227380741.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11960420/reggie-jones-sawyer-on-the-fentanyl-crisis-retail-theft-and-his-new-journey",
"audioDuration": 1784000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, talks to Marisa and Guy Marzorati about his uncle Jefferson Thomas and the Little Rock Nine, Proposition 47 and retail theft, his response to the fentanyl crisis, reparations for Black Californians, how he learned self-forgiveness and his “new journey” after a near-death experience.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey everyone, from KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown, I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati in for Scott Shafer, and today on the Breakdown, lawmakers are entering their final week of the legislative session. We’re in Sacramento to sit down with one of the committee chairs who has arguably received the most attention and scrutiny this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Los Angeles Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer is here with us in studio. His district includes South Central L.A. and he’s chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where much of the hotly debated criminal justice and fentanyl-related legislation met its fate this year. We’re going to talk with him about how his life has informed his leadership here in Sacramento. Assemblymember, welcome to the Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Great to be here this morning, thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, thanks for being here. You know, we would like to talk a little bit about your life before we get into your policymaking, because I think it’s really informed how you have governed. I know you were born in Little Rock, Arkansas, where your family had a pretty deep history. Tell us a little bit about your family there and their kind of involvement in the civil rights movement, really.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So I usually tell the story of when I finally got to college, I was having a really, really good time. I’m talking about a really good time. I’m talking academic probation, good time and about to get kicked out of USC. And I had to go sit at the foot of my grandmother, and my grandmother would have a ladle in her hand. If it was in her left hand she wanted to talk, if it was in her right hand that meant the beatings were going to start. And I started telling her because she didn’t graduate from elementary school. And I try to tell her, you know, she’s talking about her national champions. I’m going to this fancy school. I’m you know, I’m in a fraternity and everything. So the ladle went from the left hand to the right hand. That meant “shut up.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so she told me the story and she said, Look, when you were a baby, I was born in 1957, the same time my uncle was entering Little Rock Central High School with the Little Rock Nine, who were trained in nonviolence with Martin Luther King and Reverend Lawson. And she said she got a phone call one day while she was cooking and a voice was from the Klan. And the Ku Klux Klan told her to get her son out of school or your grandson will never make it to school. She said “That grandson was you. You have absolutely no right to give up this education. And in fact, you had to leave Arkansas because we knew something was better for you away from here.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Wow\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Ever since then, I was on the dean’s list, and I never look back. And so I attribute that to them telling me those stories about being able to change history. And if you talk to any one of the Little Rock Nine during that time, they just wanted to go to school.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> They were kids.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> They were kids. Think about it, they were 15, 16 years old. They had to send the 101st Airborne down to protect them, to go to school every day. They were kicked. They were beaten. They were called the N-word almost every day. And they had to endure it for a year. And there’s a picture of my uncle standing next to a fence post where they forgot to pick him up one day, and the group of kids surrounded him and started, you know, needling him and giving me a hard time. And there’s a famous picture of him standing by this lamp post. And across the street, you can see all the racists yelling at him. And he’s not moving. He’s not moving at all. And my when they finally got to him, they realized he was in shock because they surrounded him. When I asked him, how did you survive it? And he said, “I never gave them any hate back. I never let them give me any fear.” And he said there was a kid there that came over and said, “Leave him alone.” And everybody dispersed. The next day, he said, “Hey, why did you why did you come help me? Must be really Christian person. It was really great.” And the guy said, “Well, my family is atheist. I just did it because it was the right thing to do.” And ever since then, I realize no matter what the controversy is, just do the right thing and things will work out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I mean, I can imagine not just the toll him but on his family, siblings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, my mother. Another story I’ll tell you real quick. My mother, I remember, I asked her what she’d do during that time because they’re eight kids and everybody had a job. And she said, “I washed your uncle’s shirt every night.” And I made, you know, you know, 15, 14 years old. “That means you didn’t do anything.” And my uncle heard me grab it by the scruff of my neck. And he said, “Let me tell you something. Every day I went to school, somebody either picked something on me, urinated on me, took a marker on this white shirt. Every night your mother stayed up all night to make sure that shirt was white as it could be. She bleached it, she did everything she could. So when I went back every day, they saw me in the same white shirt, clean as a whistle. And that was my flag to say, you’re never going to stop me no matter what you do. You can’t stop me. Your mother did that. That was her job. Your mother probably had a more important thing to do in this struggle than anybody else.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, you mentioned that you did end up at USC, but I know before that, even after moving to L.A., you had a tough childhood. You’ve talked about that your mother was abused by your father. Can you just tell us a little bit about, you know, your experiences as a kid and kind of what you what you carried with you from those?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> I’ve learned that a lot of things that happen to young people when you’re traumatized. And that’s why I do a lot of work of getting money for people with childhood trauma so they can get beyond it. Many don’t. And they end up in the criminal justice system because of early childhood trauma. And so living in the projects, you see some things that no young kid should ever see. And whether or not a domestic violence that my mother experienced, that our family experienced, you know, I was molested as a kid with a babysitter. My uncle was stabbed seven times in front of his family members and killed in front of my aunt. And I have an uncle, not an uncle, but a cousin who was transgender and which we didn’t know what that was back then. So Julius became Jules and was going through the procedure. And one day somebody killed Jules and violated that body that they had. And I mean all of that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> How did you kind of make it out of that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So one of the things that I think really helped is I for some reason I got involved with a mental health professional who, as we went through a lot of the pain and the hurt and talked through it, one, I realized none of it was my fault. And I took a lot of blame onto myself, that to know that that, you know, there are some things I heard as far as the domestic violence that I did. I was so, you know, you’re six or five years old. I wanted to go help my mother, but I was in shock and I didn’t do anything. And so I always carried that guilt. There were things that happened with my uncles that I wanted to do something, but I couldn’t do anything. Again, I had that guilt and I wanted to lash out and that anger was in me. They taught me to not only release it, but to talk about it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But I still never really talked about it in public, I think for a lot of African-Americans, especially African-Americans in my community, especially African-American males, we don’t talk about the pain and hurt that we experience. And I’m noticing that even with in my work with public safety, there are a lot of people, firefighters, police officers, prison guards and others that experience some of the most horrendous types of scenes that you could possibly deal with and they’re not releasing or feeling a place that they can get released at. Some of us use substance, substance abuse. And that’s why you see so much out there on the street, substance abuse because we’re not able to heal ourselves. You know, when you have a mental crisis, it’s not like having a cold. Then you go get some cough medicine or somebody give you a shot to help you cure yourself. This is something that you can’t see but you but it just as damaging anything else. Stress is a killer like you wouldn’t believe. Yeah, and I don’t think people understand that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Do you see at all your path in public service that you ended up pursuing as a way to take action, a way to take back kind of empowerment and a way to kind of take forward the experiences that you went through as a child?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So I don’t know how I got here. I kind of do, but I really don’t know. On December 22nd, 2022, I had a minor operation and I died. I literally died and I was brought back to life by the nurses who took quick action. During that time I saw a lot of things. I was out for about 4 hours and when I finally came to, I saw my family around me and I asked them, you know, only takes — it was a one day operation and it only takes one of you to drive the car. Why is everybody around me? And that’s when they told me I had passed away. One of the things I tell people is I was able to see my five-year-old grandson graduate from college. And one of the things that I saw, I saw a lot of things and it made it clear why I am here right now, that there’s some things that I need to do. There were some challenges that I’m meeting now that I actually saw during that time, that if I had said something, I think people thought I would think I was a little nuts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I mean, there’s we have a history of people who experience life and death situations and they come back and tell you what they saw and people kind of look at you funny. Well as somebody that’s been through that, I believe that sometimes God has a way of saying, “I need to talk to you for a little bit.” Because when I went back to my hospital and said, Why did I die? Why did I have a cardiac arrest? I had a cardiac arrest on the 22nd? What caused it? And to this day, nobody knows how it cause it. But when I went to went to my church and they pointed up to the sky and said, I know, they said “God just needed to talk to you for a little bit.” And right after that, I’m starting this new journey of why I need to to do more, to not only help my people, but to make sure that everyone has a society that works best for them. And for the first time, I realize I’m in a position to really kind of help people, especially disadvantaged people, especially homeless people, especially people who don’t have a voice. That’s why I’m here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Alright, hold it there. We’re going to take a very short break and when we come back we’ll continue talking to L.A. Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown, I’m Marisa Lagos here this week with Guy Marzorati. We are talking with Los Angeles Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer. So we mentioned you had a pretty traumatic childhood. You ended up at USC. I know you spent time working in college at the morgue during the crack epidemic, and then you go on to work in L.A. city government for decades. And I kind of want to jump forward because we only have so much time. You were elected to the Assembly in 2012, and this was really right after the Supreme Court had ordered the state to lower its prison population. Lawmakers and the governor were really grappling with how to do that, how to do that while ensuring public safety. And you end up getting tapped to work on the Public Safety Committee pretty soon after to lead it. How did that kind of come to be and was that something that you welcomed or thought you might be doing when you got up here? I know you ran on more of the kind of economic job creation platform.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Yes. And as I worked for the city for 25 years, I did real estate. I ended up Director of Real Estate when I retired from the city. And so when I first got here, I wanted to change the criminal justice system from the courts. And so I decided that since they were during the time when we didn’t have any money, we had kind of. It’s about $1,000,000,000 that the court system was in the hole. And so I made a concerted effort to restore that money. But I wanted to restore that money so that they would have diversion programs and they would have drug courts and juvenile courts and homeless courts and courts that it would help people divert from the prison population. And when I first started, the judges told me that I couldn’t do that. That one, I wasn’t a lawyer. I didn’t know what I was talking about. And I said, Well, that’s fine. But right now I’m in charge of the purse strings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Do you want to get out of this deficit or not?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> And so I worked really hard over two or the next five years, one to restore that billion dollars so they could run efficiently. So people would have access to justice from the criminal justice system. But at that time, we had three strikes. We had sentences that were predetermined no matter what happened. Judges could only do that. And so we started to move the courts to where judges were able to actually look at the holistic individual and figure out a way what is best for, say, public safety. And then they make the decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You’ve had a decade now in the legislature, I think seven years chairing this public safety committee. Where would you point to as kind of, maybe your greatest mark on public safety, on the criminal legal system in California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So when we looked at ways we can ensure that people didn’t recidivate and lowering the number of people who recidivate back into prison, we made a conscious effort to make sure that they were trained, they had jobs, better educated, got off of drugs, and if they had mental health problems when we started to focus like a laser on those things, there are fewer and fewer people coming back into prison, because it was like a revolving door. And so the prison population obviously ballooned to about 160,000, now it’s about 96,000 people who are incarcerated. That means we have an opportunity to close prisons. And this year, I asked that two of the savings, or two of the prisons that the governor is closing will result in $230 million of annual savings that I want to plow it back into programs that help people with mental health in the communities that better education Boys and Girls Clubs on Saturday night basketball, things that keep kids out of out of problem areas so that we don’t refill the prisons again and that we have productive citizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, and I think if you look at the data, I’m looking at recent numbers from the money that’s been saved from Prop 47, one of the reforms, the recidivism rates are just so low if people actually complete these programs. But as you know, there was a lot of reforms that happened. Realignment, Prop 47, three strikes reform, Prop 57. And there’s been some backlash. And I just wonder, is there any argument we went too far too fast? When you talk to people who are worried about public safety these days, do you ever feel like, okay, maybe we, you know, should have been a little bit slower on some of these changes?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So we went too far too fast when we did three strikes and other things and then we’re trying to adjust.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You mean the tough-on-crime era?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> The tough-on-crime era and when you do an adjustment because there is no law that is perfect. And like I usually tell people, and I’m an elected official, so I can say this. It’s never legislation. It’s always implementation. And so if we had implemented it to its fullest, if we had people totally involved in making sure it got corrected, we would not be in the situation where — the example I will give you, I did AB 1065 organized retail theft, that was done 2018. That little small unit of CHP and DOJ have resulted in $30 million brought back over 1800 convictions or places where they’ve actually arrested people. Been unbelievably successful. We did that with Jerry Brown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Then when Governor Gavin Newsom looked at the statistics, he gave it another $200 million to expand it because it was so successful. And now when you actually look at the number of people who are being arrested now on a smash and grab, it’s based on the organized retail theft law that I instituted. And what it does is, it charges people with felonies so that they not only get several years in jail, but Attorney General Bonta is also charging them with federal crimes which could get up to 20 years in jail. So that way you go after the organizers of it and get them off the street. But you still have an opportunity to deal with people who you can give some services to. That’s the kind of combination we needed to do, and we needed to spread it and expand it to make Prop 47 better. That’s where we’re at. We got to make Prop 47 better and not eliminate it. That’s the struggle right now. It’s either ying or yang.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Because there is this sense, and I think, in large part driven by viral videos, that sense of lawlessness or that you could get away with shoplifting. How do you respond to those kind of criticisms?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> It’s difficult. One of my early political mentors once told me “perception is reality.” The chief of police of LAPD, Los Angeles police department can tell you every day that violent crime is down. He can tell you that crime is down. But if you see those videos on TV, you feel—\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What do you feel?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And then the other thing that which I think is also distressing that we have to come to grips with, that there’s a racial aspect to it. So when you see homeless people out on the street and, you know, you see African-American homeless people out in the street, there are people who are not African-Americans who then are fearful of black people anyway, clutching their purses when they get on the elevator. And then that’s exacerbated when you walk out every day and you see a homeless person out there. And so that just that subconsciously is giving the impression that everything is worse. How many times do you hear that because of the homeless situation, “This looks like a third world country,” and statements like that. And so we’ve really got to come to grips with our own, what we feel and just try to focus like a laser on how to resolve that, because that that’s part of it. Because perception is really reality for a lot of people.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I want to ask you really quickly before we talk about fentanyl, the other law that got passed to kind of tweak 47 was to allow folks to aggregate charges, DAs to aggregate charges, right? So that if you are a repeat, you know, shoplifter, even if you’re not part of a big ring, you can get charged with a felony, even if the dollar amount, you know, doesn’t get to that felony threshold. I’ve been doing some research. I have not been able to find any examples of this law being used. One DA says he’s never had police present that sort of case. Others have told me they think it’s just difficult for law enforcement to build these cases. What’s your response to that kind of, you know, reaction? Because we hear a lot of kind of hating on 47 from law enforcement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Right. And that’s been, that’s been a real problem. And that’s why I talk about, for example, on fentanyl I said we need to unite the fight on fentanyl. We need to unite the fight against criminals, to unite to fight to protect citizens, because we can’t pull it all together. Collaboration is the only way we’re going to ultimately be able to get this done. If law enforcement is not doing a job because they think Prop 47 is preventing them, when in fact we do have laws on the books that they can, think about it: If the attorney general and the CHP can aggregate and do it, that means other law enforcement officers can do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We need to put down all the rhetoric and then come together to get this done. No one, no one Republican, Democrat, moderate, progressive, no one wants to get let criminals get away with anything. And that is a fallacy whatsoever. And so there are laws on the books that you can actually prosecute. When I hear from a business owner that says, “I see someone in my store, I call the police. Three hours later, they show up and said they don’t really come to these because of Prop 47.” Well, that’s not true. If you catch somebody in your store burglarizing it, you can prosecute them and you can prosecute to the fullest. So somehow we’ve got to have a collaborative conversation to where we’re all working together to do what we need to do to to give people a perception that criminals are being prosecuted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I want to ask about fentanyl. There’s been a number of bills that moved through the Public Safety Committee this year dealing with increasing sentencing for dealing fentanyl that were voted down, some of them even brought by Democrats. And I wonder, you know, in Sacramento, you often get bills that get kind of a courtesy ‘aye’ vote in committee. Members might not completely support the idea, but they want to see the bill move forward. They want to see negotiations or kind of compromise continue. Why did you feel, I guess, that those bills were legislatively irredeemable? They couldn’t move past your committee.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> So when those bills come up, the committee as a whole try to figure out a way so that they can pass. It is usually up to the author whether or not they accept amendments. Probably 90% of the time, maybe close to 100% of the time, the reason they don’t get out is because they refuse any kind of amendments. They want it to go through purely as the way it is. There is no legislation that doesn’t have some kind of change so that we can move forward with it. And so even when we don’t vote on something, meaning if some of the legislation that goes through where the committee does a no vote, they just don’t vote at all. That means they want to do more research and look at it and then hopefully it’ll get passed in January. Well, that was looked upon as a no vote. It’s not a no vote. It’s look, let’s get back past the rhetoric, let’s get past the politics in the press and let’s get into the policy of what we really need to do. Because once you get to the root of what you’re trying to solve, because that’s what we —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, what do you think we need to do around fentanyl? I mean, it is a crisis. It’s horrific what’s happening.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Well we have a $5 billion bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, tell us about that. That we, the Democrats, put together a group of law enforcement, medical professionals, psychiatrists, drug abuse specialists. They all came together and we had a hearing. And whether it was a judge, a DA, law enforcement, each of them said we needed a public health solution to fentanyl and that tough-on-crime measures did not work. So I believe we could stop the opioid epidemic if we had better education, we went to the schools. Also making sure we had Narcan. That’s what my bond does, make sure we had Narcan in every school or in places so we can stop the overdose, especially in Skid Row, where my district is that we can stop it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And so this bond, November 2024, that’s what you’re pushing for, is that right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Yes. We were trying to get it on, obviously wanted to get it on the March.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But the governor has other things going on\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> There was a bigger name\u003cem> [laughs]\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> We’re running short on time. The last thing we want to ask you about is reparations. You were involved on the task force multiyear process, came out with the final report this summer. It sounds like most of the legislative action is probably going to happen starting next year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> Correct.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Bills getting introduced that came ideas from the report. If we’re sitting here in a year, what does success look like to you on reparations over the course of the next year?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer:\u003c/strong> And so the main the two main people who are going to be involved in it is Senator Steven Bradford and myself, we ill be pushing both legislative and budgetary recommendations moving forward through both houses and to the Governor. For us, with this being our last year, obviously we would like to get everything done, but we’re going to try to get as much done as possible, knowing the reality may be a multiyear process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Of course, yeah.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer\u003c/strong>: But we’ve got to at least set up the initial parameters, especially the easy things, like an apology letter should not be something that’s ultimately controversial. Looking at ways we can ensure that that African-Americans, especially young kids, can get into higher education. The law school at UCLA, the numbers are abysmal. If we just worked real hard to figure out a way we can get more and more of our kids there, and then we’re really seriously looking at innovative ways to be able to close the wealth gap. And it’s even harder now with the housing crisis and the housing being so expensive. But that is, if you look at what is the wealth gap between white and African Americans it is the home. And if we can start to own land, then we can go to the next step. Owning a business or stocks and bonds. But it’s a gradual thing. But the first thing we got to start is financial literacy and being able to get people to start to own and buy homes and remove those barriers from us being able to access property.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: All right. We’re going to have to leave it there. Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, thanks for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Appreciate your time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reggie Jones-Sawyer\u003c/strong>: All right, thank you. Thank you both, this was great.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: That’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown, we’re a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati\u003c/strong>: Our engineers today are Brendan Willard and Christopher Beale, I’m Guy Marzorati.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong>: And I’m Marisa Lagos. We’ll see you next week.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11960420/reggie-jones-sawyer-on-the-fentanyl-crisis-retail-theft-and-his-new-journey",
"authors": [
"3239",
"227"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_22235",
"news_18502",
"news_28549",
"news_2923"
],
"featImg": "news_11960421",
"label": "source_news_11960420"
},
"news_11959851": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11959851",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11959851",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1693532667000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1693532667,
"format": "audio",
"title": "Tony Thurmond on Culture Wars in California Schools",
"headTitle": "Tony Thurmond on Culture Wars in California Schools | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, joins Marisa and Guy Marzorati to discuss the transgender reporting policies roiling local school districts. Thurmond also discusses the family members who helped him through childhood loss, his path to state office and education in California during the pandemic.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey everyone, from KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown, I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati, in for Scott Shafer and today on the Breakdown, we are sitting down with California’s top elected official on education. Tony Thurmond is the state superintendent of public instruction. He oversees the department directing and enforcing education laws in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s right. Thurmond was first elected in 2018 to the position after several terms in the state legislature. He was at the helm of the department through the pandemic and its rocky aftermath. And now he’s making headlines, taking on conservative school boards, pushing policies related to transgender students. Superintendent Thurmond, thank you for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Good to see you in person. So we want to talk a lot, you know, about your bio, and we do a lot of backward looking on the show. But we kind of want to start with current events and there’s a lot of bigger culture wars happening. But just this week in the Bay Area, as you probably know, we saw a really concrete example of the impact of the attention being paid to California by conservative groups. I’m talking about a bomb threat called into Chabot Elementary and Oakland, resulted in schools being, you know, canceled for the day, came after blowback when the school received for hosting a gathering specifically for kids and families of color. Broad brush strokes like what’s your reaction to that incident, the moment we’re in? You know, it feels like the return to school is really colliding with a lot of these culture wars in this moment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> You know, it’s just heartbreaking that anyone would make bomb threats to students, elementary school students, babies, really, and their educators and families because they didn’t agree that the school is doing some things to affirm the diversity, the beautiful diversity that exists in our state. First and foremost, we are working with city officials and school officials to make sure that everyone is safe. But we will continue to have our message loud and clear that education plays a very key role in ending hate. And hate is spiking. But we think that we have to be the ones to show folks that we have beautiful diversity. We can work together, and that things like inclusive education actually help students to be more successful academically.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Maybe the biggest issue — cultural issue roiling California schools right now is this policy transgender notification. This is a handful of school districts that are requiring teachers, requiring school staff to notify parents when their kids are expressing different gender identities than what the official records reflect. What do you see as kind of the greatest danger posed by this policy? And how is the state responding?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> You know, it’s it’s the fact that more than 40% of LGBTQ students in this country have said that they’ve considered suicide, that it’s often tied to lack of acceptance about their gender identity. Four out of ten kids who are homeless or runaway often are those who are pushed out of their homes or couldn’t be at home. They were rejected for, you know, for their gender identity. And so a policy like this puts students in such danger and harm’s way. That is mind boggling, that school board members who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the state and its participants would use such a mean spirited policy against them. We won’t stand for that. And, you know, we’ve been vocal on why we think that the law protects the privacy of students. And by the way, we also think that there, you know, are important parental rights that can be supported. But we don’t think that parental rights extends to putting students in harm’s way. We think these are conversations that should take place between families and their students, not forcing school district staff to be the ones who tell a parent about their children’s sexual identity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, I can see folks who who see themselves as, you know, advocates or allies of the LGBT community saying, but parents should be involved. I mean, these are their kids like. And it also strikes me that we are talking about this with a really broad brush stroke. I mean, as somebody with kids in elementary school, there’s a big difference between a second grader and a 10th grader, right? So what do you say to that pushback that, like, you know, parents, these are their kids and and do you think we should be sort of differentiating some of these conversations around age, you know, ages and what’s appropriate at different age levels?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think that, you know, the board majorities that are pushing these policies are spreading a false narrative to suggest that we don’t care about parent rights. Parents do have rights. I’m a parent. You know, my kids go to school in these schools and parents never should lose their rights and they’re not being asked to lose their rights. You know, parents have a right to, and have processes where they can give input on what’s in the curriculum taught in school. We create spaces for parents to be involved in every aspect of what their children are learning. These board majorities, though, they’re they’re bypassing these, you know, these places that we have set up for parents to give input. And they’re simply saying things like, “If a book mentions Harvey Milk, I don’t want my kids to even know who Harvey Milk is.” And that’s just wrong for someone who is was recognized with the Presidential Medal of Freedom and someone who’s recognized as a Navy service person, someone who, you know, made great strides for the city of San Francisco and and for the LGBTQ+ community in the world. Our notion is that students do better when they have information, when they can learn about individuals who, you know, reflect their background. But the research proves students do better. Students from all backgrounds do better when they have access to learning about other cultural experiences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We should be clear what these board majorities are pushing. They’re calling it parent rights, But really what they’re doing is pushing a political agenda. This is the MAGA political agenda that they are seeking to attack the LGBTQ+ community and kids of color and look at what it has produced. We had a shop owner killed just a few weeks ago who hung a pride flag we had over the weekend as we mark the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington, we had someone kill people because he said he hated African-Americans. He made anti-Semitic remarks. We are at a moment in time when there are these acts of hate that are rising and these board majorities are playing off of that to drive hate. Now they’re driving violence from their policies. And I’ve made an overture to them. If they want to talk about parent rights, let’s work together to find a balance of supporting parent rights in a way that maintains the safety of students in our communities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So what is that balance, then? And I mean, and how do you approach this as a parent? You know, if your kids were grappling with these issues of gender expression in school, what would you want to see from their teachers? And is there a better way, I guess, to facilitate these conversations?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> You know, I recently had someone tell me he’s an adult and he told me that when he came out as a gay man, that, you know, it was one of his teachers who he went to, who he spoke with, who helped him as someone who was compassionate, who was a guide, who helped him connect with resources. You know, these policies take away one of the most important allies that students have at school, and it forces them to be in an adversarial position. You know, it really is —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Putting teachers kind of in the middle\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. And saying that you have to essentially out someone or, you know, and turning it into something negative and to tell on someone, you know, telling your parents that you are gay, lesbian, transgender, these are difficult conversations even in the best households. You know, why would we create adversarial situations? What these broad majority should be doing is finding ways to give parents the resources and the tools to have the hard conversations with their kids. Talking about anything with your kids can be difficult. And I’m suggesting that these board majorities are more concerned about making a political statement than what’s good for kids.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They’re banning critical race theory. No school in California teaches critical race theory. So they’re sending a message to kids of color, we don’t want you here in the kids who are who are impacted are telling me they feel that way. I ended up at the school district in Chino Valley because students told me they felt unsafe because of how board members were treating them, threatening them on social media. I saw it for myself firsthand in a board chamber where Proud Boys were threatening me just for standing up for students. But I’ll take that, and I’ll stand up for students every single time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You know, this has turned into a political fight. We’re seeing ballot measures being written, as you mentioned, school board members being elected on a lot of this. And it does seem like a pretty highly organized campaign. In California, you see one pastor in particular who’s, you know, I think helped sort of push and draft some of these measures. Do you feel like Democrats were caught off guard by all of this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I think the short answer is yes. Right? This is a scripted playbook, is a nationally driven playbook by groups that have been losing at the ballot box in congressional races in the White House and in state legislatures. And they’ve made a decision that they’re going to wage war at the local level, at the school district level and the school board. And so Democrats and progressives and others need to come back with ways to counter this. But I’ve seen data that shows that there are many who don’t agree with what these board majorities are pushing. Even some Republicans and conservatives have said this is not where the focus should be.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I would like to challenge those at some of these school board majorities rather than using these political measures to, you know, literally oppress their kids. They should be focusing on things like improving chronic absenteeism. You know, the school district in Chino Valley has a very high rate of chronic absenteeism. We know what that means for kids. And I’ve been contacted by parents in the district who’ve told me about gang fights, racially targeted tension in the schools. They should be working on those things, and I’d like to help them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>You know, I reached out to the board president to talk about these issues. You saw what happened in the board meeting. I spoke by one minute. They threw me out with security and police surrounding me that let me know that they didn’t want to talk about issues. They just want to push a political agenda. I’m saying right now, I’m ready to help them, you know, make sure their kids have the resources to learn how to read, improve their chronic absenteeism rates, make sure their kids are ready for the jobs of tomorrow, and help them with intervention programs to address gangs and violence that are running rampant in some of their schools.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So you mentioned those conversations, but you also said the word “counter.” What is, I guess, the political response to this both right now, on the ballot in 2024 —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We’ve got two more weeks in this legislative session.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah and then the legislative session. I mean you’ve written a bill in your time, or two —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Quite a few.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Should we expect anything in the next couple of weeks?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I think that there are bills going forward right now. I’ve helped to write a bill, AB 1078. This is a bill that says that our schools cannot ban books in the attempts to discriminate against LGBTQ+ kids or kids of color. If you ban a book, you will pay a fee to mitigate the impacts of that ban. What I would tell your listeners is please pay attention to what people put in front of you. This ballot measure will have misleading language. It’ll make it sound like “we are here to affirm parent rights.” But what they’re really trying to do is take away the right of students to be safe, to explore their gender identity. And so I just think it’s important that parents look out for these ballot measures. You know, be informed. Don’t allow yourselves to be confused. Every one of the bills that has been introduced in the legislature to try and counter these attacks on students — these board majorities and the pastors that you mentioned, they have rallies and they make up names and make it sound like what they’re doing is really intended to help someone. But really, it’s intended to hurt someone and it’s dangerous. I mean, literally, lives have been lost over these discussions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And what’s the message that they’re sending to kids at that school board meeting? I watch person after person after person be thrown out for offering a different view. I thought I was in a reality TV show format. You know, it was knock down, drag out. You’re out of here. You know, that’s not how our school board meetings are supposed to be run. We should be role modeling for our young people that we can use civility even when we disagree. We can agree to disagree. We don’t need to be disagreeable to anyone. And sadly, what we’re seeing is that the tenor that the school board mark majorities are sending is contributing to direct violence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right. We are going to take a short break. When we come back, we’re continuing our conversation with California’s superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurmond. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Politico Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos here today with Guy Marzorati and California’s superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurmond. All right, well, we want to go back to the beginning. Talk a little bit about how you ended up in this role. You were born at Ford Ord in Monterey, and I know you spent some time in San Jose. Tell us a little bit about your early years. I think it was the first six years with your mom was pretty good.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> That’s right. Yeah. You know, I’m the son of immigrants. You know, my mom was born in Panama. She came to the U.S., became a teacher in San Jose. My dad was a Vietnam vet who I met for the first time when I found him on the Internet around the time of my 40th birthday. He served in Vietnam. He didn’t return to our family. And so my mom raised four kids by herself in San Jose, and we were all together until she got too sick to take care of us. And my mom had cancer and when I was six, she passed away. And so the siblings got split up. I saw two of them maybe once in a ten year period. My five year old brother and I got sent to live in Philadelphia to be raised by a cousin who we never met until we showed up on her doorstep.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> She too, an immigrant. Someone who didn’t have a formal education. She took us in. You know, we struggled all the time. We didn’t have food in the household sometimes. I grew up on the free lunch program, you know, food stamps and government. You know I ate so much government cheese, I thought that USDA was a brand name sometime. But for us, these were programs to help my family to overcome poverty. The most important public program to overcome poverty was getting an education. It changed my life. I became a social worker. I work with foster youth, young people coming out of the criminal justice system. And then the last 15 years, I’ve been city council, school board member, state legislator, state superintendent. And it’s just been an honor to serve the people of the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, tell us about that, cousin. I don’t know. Other family members, friends, teachers, people in the faith community, like who are the people kind of lifting you up, keeping you afloat at that time?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> All of them. You know, my cousin, you know, I like to say that my mom gave me life and my cousin gave me a life. You know, she she really worked hard to make sure that we know that education could be for us and could you know, we got to go to great public schools. And she fought hard to make sure that we had everything that we needed. And she worked two jobs, went to night school. She got her degree. When she graduated, she had us there. You know, to see that through hard work, you can get an education and change the course of your life.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>My teachers were the same. They set a high bar and they were sending a message. It may not have been in these words, but their message was like the promise of education will help you have better circumstances than the circumstances you had when your life started. And they were making a promise that came true. And it’s the message that I deliver to young people today. Education will carry you ever you want to go, but you have to have mentors along the way. You know, as a kid, when we went to when we went to church, we know we walked 45 minutes each way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Uphill both ways?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Uphill both ways, in the snow. No shoes, literally in the snow. No. But the pastor in his family made sure that we had food and a meal and sometimes a ride home. I was given opportunities in my community of worship to do public speaking, to welcome the guests, to sing in the choir, to organize a junior choir. These things helped me to come out of my quiet, shy shell and to find my voice. Countless mentors in my life, countless caring adults who were pouring into me and saying, “Your life will be better than it started.” Education certainly at the center of that. But there’s nothing more important than having those great mentors in education. You put all that together and it meant a better experience for me, and it has driven my decision to enter in the public service.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well before we get to that, you went to Temple University\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Go Owls!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And you ran for what?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Student body president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> John Cheney years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What was your slogan? What was your platform? These were early political days.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> It was. You’re going to love this, my roommate in college wanted to be student body president, and he asked me to run as his vice president. I really wasn’t interested, but I was like, all right. And we won. And then I started to see how you could use government and politics to make a difference. We focused heavily on more funding in higher education. We asked our university to divest from the South African government at that time because it was a time when black South Africans did not have a vote or a voice. Seeing our university divest, it really like triggered some thoughts from me that maybe I’d have a career one day in politics. My slogan when I ran to become student body president and when I was elected: “Unity in diversity.” And it’s a message that I would use today with all this turmoil that we have. We have to recognize the diversity that we have, but see that we also have a lot of unity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s impressive you already kind of had the political speech down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I mean, thank you. I don’t know that I had it all plotted out like that, but I’m sad that 30, 40 years later, we’re still having the same conversations. And I believe that most Californians want more. We can do more and and we can do more together. But it was a great experience. It opened up my eyes to the possibility of politics as a way to make change. Before I ever put my name on a ballot, I was a social worker and I spent 20 years first as a social worker, and then I ran. And I’m trying to bring those same social work values of making change to politics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I’m grateful that we’ve been able to get a lot done. We’ve got, you know, universal preschool for every three and four year old, universal meals for every hungry student in our state. We secured the funding to recruit 10,000 counselors to help our kids who’ve been through depression and anxiety. And so I’m just really thrilled and grateful that we’ve been able to have these accomplishments and we can do great things for students and their families here in the state of California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And yet you have some people say, do we even need a state superintendent of public instruction? They say, we have a president of the state board of ed, what’s the case, I guess, you’ve made through your work that this is a vital position? And would you suggest, now in your second term, any changes to the job?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Well, I think we should give the state superintendent more direct ability to affect what happens in education. You know, we have a relationship to help 1000 school districts and they each have their own school boards. And so, yeah, we have local control and I value that. I was a school board member and all the bad decisions that got passed down to our local board are the reasons why I ran for the state legislature in the first place. But we should give the state superintendent more budget authority to be able to move programs in the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What I’ve done, because of the absence of that power and authority to do those things, I’ve used, you know, the microphone that this job gives me to sponsor legislation to get things done. This year, I sponsored 20 bills in the legislature. Many of them already have been signed into law that are going to allow us to provide more resources to kids who have dyslexia. We have more resources to bring retired teachers back into the classroom. We have a major shortage in this state, so I’ve had to be more creative in how I do my work. I work very closely with our governor and with our legislature to get things done, like the $6 billion that I helped to secure, to have more Internet access for our students. Our students don’t need hotspots. They need access to top technology so they’re ready for the jobs of tomorrow in STEAM, in computer science. You know, we need folks who are ready to, you know, teach in our classes. I’m offering a $20,000 scholarship to anybody who wants to become a teacher in California, who wants to become a mental health clinician in our schools. Just give me a call, 1-800-GET AT ME and I got your scholarship right here or at the other number or other email teachinCA@cde.ca.gov, if you will. That shameless plug.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s a first. It’s usually a campaign website. So we’ll take we’ll take the CDE website and I wanna talk a little about the pandemic, but I also want to ask something. There have been questions raised in the media about your management style. Some former employees claiming a toxic work culture, saying you don’t allow staff to disagree with you. I’m curious about your response, but also like how do you just describe your management style?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> You know, my management style is very participatory. I ask people what they think, you know, I want to get the best ideas. And I’ve always believed that the way you get there is you hire the smartest people and you bring teams together to answer questions. And all those bills that I talked to you about, I pull together local superintendents, school board members, people with expertise to help us design solutions to the challenges that we have.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s very painful to hear people say the things that they’ve said. And I’ll just say that it’s just flat out untrue. And I’ll say at the same time, I’m someone who’s driving to make change. If you ask me to go slow while we have 200,000 homeless students, while we have students who are struggling to read or do basic math, I’m going to be honest. I’m always going to push to say we must do more and we must do better by our students. But I listen to all voices. I’m grateful for the staff that we have. We have 2000 staff members at the California Department of Education. I’m proud to lead them and to work with them. And anybody who has a question about my management style, you know, don’t just take my answers for it. Talk to the people on my executive team, some of the most talented leaders anywhere, some of the most diverse leaders anywhere. Very thoughtful people who are working together to do great things for our six million students.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, COVID certainly upended public education during your time as state superintendent. I want to ask you specifically about a vote that the legislature and Governor Newsom, through the budget, took in the summer of 2020 to allow local school districts a really great deal of flexibility when it came to allowing for distance learning. Was that a mistake, given how we saw things play out in the 2020-2021 school year in places like San Francisco? Was that a mistake to give school districts so much leeway over distance learning and in many cases opting not to reopen schools?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I would say that the biggest challenge that we had started immediately when the pandemic began and we learned that there were a million students in our state without a computer or access to high speed Internet. How could that be? In a state with Silicon Valley and all the technological advances that we have in this state? And so I literally went out and got donations to get computers to kids. We got a million computers and a million hotspots for students. And then I sponsored a bill that helped us to get $6 billion for broadband in our state. I basically got commitments out of all of the Internet service providers to provide low cost Internet, $15 a month. You know, we should never be in a position again where our students are affected by this digital divide. And of course, that has created learning gaps for our students. And we’re working through those learning gaps. But I’ll just tell you, California is better position than any other state in the nation to help our students recover from those learning gaps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And here’s the thing, say what you want about California schools. I wish we had the hindsight to know what the impacts of COVID would be, but a million people lost their lives during COVID. Our first move was to listen to the public health folks. How do we keep kids safe? And at the same time, how do we find a way to get them, you know, a great education? Now, look, I’m a person who likes to be in-person with other people. I would say most of us, it’s our nature. We don’t want to be isolated. But during a pandemic, a worldwide pandemic, what choice do we have but to use distance learning. And if we had the resources and tools, maybe our students would have had a better experience. But the reality is, is that all across this nation, students in every state, even those that opened sooner than California school students, experience learning gaps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But to be fair, I mean, we look at like math proficiency. It did fall here more than the national average. We’re running out of time. But who do you feel like is accountable for that? Is it at the local level? Is there you know, was there a bigger role the state could have played?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I hope we have more time to to go through it all. You know, it’s a complex web of things. And I think the reality is that the pandemic upended all of our lives. Hundreds of thousands of kids have lost a parent and in some cases more than one parent. And that’s just the reality. And this state has done more than most to address that. But in a state with local control, there is no one button to push to say all schools come back at the same time. I certainly don’t have it within my office to do. If I did, I’d be happy to use it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You would have.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I’d be happy to use it. I think it’s easy to point, to blame. And if people want to push blame in my direction, I’ll accept that. But I’m more interested in what’s the solution? This is where we are for students everywhere in the nation. What’s the solution? I’m not going to sit here and rest of my laurels, but I’ll tell you, I’ve secured funding to allow us to recruit 10,000 mental health clinicians to help our kids. I’ve been able to get $500 million to make sure we have reading coaches in the schools that have the highest needs around literacy. If you look at where we were before the pandemic, there were deficiencies that got worse in the pandemic. We’re focused now on how we get better in the state of California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That is state superintendent of public Instruction Tony Thurmond. Thanks for your time today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown, a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I’m Guy Marzorati, our engineer today is Christopher Beale.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos, we’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 5627,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 69
},
"modified": 1700874526,
"excerpt": "How are state officials responding to transgender reporting policies in California schools?",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "How are state officials responding to transgender reporting policies in California schools?",
"title": "Tony Thurmond on Culture Wars in California Schools | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Tony Thurmond on Culture Wars in California Schools",
"datePublished": "2023-08-31T18:44:27-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:08:46-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "tony-thurmond-on-culture-wars-in-california-schools",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC6607808420.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11959851/tony-thurmond-on-culture-wars-in-california-schools",
"audioDuration": 1823000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, joins Marisa and Guy Marzorati to discuss the transgender reporting policies roiling local school districts. Thurmond also discusses the family members who helped him through childhood loss, his path to state office and education in California during the pandemic.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey everyone, from KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown, I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati, in for Scott Shafer and today on the Breakdown, we are sitting down with California’s top elected official on education. Tony Thurmond is the state superintendent of public instruction. He oversees the department directing and enforcing education laws in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s right. Thurmond was first elected in 2018 to the position after several terms in the state legislature. He was at the helm of the department through the pandemic and its rocky aftermath. And now he’s making headlines, taking on conservative school boards, pushing policies related to transgender students. Superintendent Thurmond, thank you for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Good to see you in person. So we want to talk a lot, you know, about your bio, and we do a lot of backward looking on the show. But we kind of want to start with current events and there’s a lot of bigger culture wars happening. But just this week in the Bay Area, as you probably know, we saw a really concrete example of the impact of the attention being paid to California by conservative groups. I’m talking about a bomb threat called into Chabot Elementary and Oakland, resulted in schools being, you know, canceled for the day, came after blowback when the school received for hosting a gathering specifically for kids and families of color. Broad brush strokes like what’s your reaction to that incident, the moment we’re in? You know, it feels like the return to school is really colliding with a lot of these culture wars in this moment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> You know, it’s just heartbreaking that anyone would make bomb threats to students, elementary school students, babies, really, and their educators and families because they didn’t agree that the school is doing some things to affirm the diversity, the beautiful diversity that exists in our state. First and foremost, we are working with city officials and school officials to make sure that everyone is safe. But we will continue to have our message loud and clear that education plays a very key role in ending hate. And hate is spiking. But we think that we have to be the ones to show folks that we have beautiful diversity. We can work together, and that things like inclusive education actually help students to be more successful academically.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Maybe the biggest issue — cultural issue roiling California schools right now is this policy transgender notification. This is a handful of school districts that are requiring teachers, requiring school staff to notify parents when their kids are expressing different gender identities than what the official records reflect. What do you see as kind of the greatest danger posed by this policy? And how is the state responding?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> You know, it’s it’s the fact that more than 40% of LGBTQ students in this country have said that they’ve considered suicide, that it’s often tied to lack of acceptance about their gender identity. Four out of ten kids who are homeless or runaway often are those who are pushed out of their homes or couldn’t be at home. They were rejected for, you know, for their gender identity. And so a policy like this puts students in such danger and harm’s way. That is mind boggling, that school board members who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the state and its participants would use such a mean spirited policy against them. We won’t stand for that. And, you know, we’ve been vocal on why we think that the law protects the privacy of students. And by the way, we also think that there, you know, are important parental rights that can be supported. But we don’t think that parental rights extends to putting students in harm’s way. We think these are conversations that should take place between families and their students, not forcing school district staff to be the ones who tell a parent about their children’s sexual identity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, I can see folks who who see themselves as, you know, advocates or allies of the LGBT community saying, but parents should be involved. I mean, these are their kids like. And it also strikes me that we are talking about this with a really broad brush stroke. I mean, as somebody with kids in elementary school, there’s a big difference between a second grader and a 10th grader, right? So what do you say to that pushback that, like, you know, parents, these are their kids and and do you think we should be sort of differentiating some of these conversations around age, you know, ages and what’s appropriate at different age levels?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think that, you know, the board majorities that are pushing these policies are spreading a false narrative to suggest that we don’t care about parent rights. Parents do have rights. I’m a parent. You know, my kids go to school in these schools and parents never should lose their rights and they’re not being asked to lose their rights. You know, parents have a right to, and have processes where they can give input on what’s in the curriculum taught in school. We create spaces for parents to be involved in every aspect of what their children are learning. These board majorities, though, they’re they’re bypassing these, you know, these places that we have set up for parents to give input. And they’re simply saying things like, “If a book mentions Harvey Milk, I don’t want my kids to even know who Harvey Milk is.” And that’s just wrong for someone who is was recognized with the Presidential Medal of Freedom and someone who’s recognized as a Navy service person, someone who, you know, made great strides for the city of San Francisco and and for the LGBTQ+ community in the world. Our notion is that students do better when they have information, when they can learn about individuals who, you know, reflect their background. But the research proves students do better. Students from all backgrounds do better when they have access to learning about other cultural experiences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We should be clear what these board majorities are pushing. They’re calling it parent rights, But really what they’re doing is pushing a political agenda. This is the MAGA political agenda that they are seeking to attack the LGBTQ+ community and kids of color and look at what it has produced. We had a shop owner killed just a few weeks ago who hung a pride flag we had over the weekend as we mark the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington, we had someone kill people because he said he hated African-Americans. He made anti-Semitic remarks. We are at a moment in time when there are these acts of hate that are rising and these board majorities are playing off of that to drive hate. Now they’re driving violence from their policies. And I’ve made an overture to them. If they want to talk about parent rights, let’s work together to find a balance of supporting parent rights in a way that maintains the safety of students in our communities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So what is that balance, then? And I mean, and how do you approach this as a parent? You know, if your kids were grappling with these issues of gender expression in school, what would you want to see from their teachers? And is there a better way, I guess, to facilitate these conversations?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> You know, I recently had someone tell me he’s an adult and he told me that when he came out as a gay man, that, you know, it was one of his teachers who he went to, who he spoke with, who helped him as someone who was compassionate, who was a guide, who helped him connect with resources. You know, these policies take away one of the most important allies that students have at school, and it forces them to be in an adversarial position. You know, it really is —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Putting teachers kind of in the middle\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. And saying that you have to essentially out someone or, you know, and turning it into something negative and to tell on someone, you know, telling your parents that you are gay, lesbian, transgender, these are difficult conversations even in the best households. You know, why would we create adversarial situations? What these broad majority should be doing is finding ways to give parents the resources and the tools to have the hard conversations with their kids. Talking about anything with your kids can be difficult. And I’m suggesting that these board majorities are more concerned about making a political statement than what’s good for kids.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They’re banning critical race theory. No school in California teaches critical race theory. So they’re sending a message to kids of color, we don’t want you here in the kids who are who are impacted are telling me they feel that way. I ended up at the school district in Chino Valley because students told me they felt unsafe because of how board members were treating them, threatening them on social media. I saw it for myself firsthand in a board chamber where Proud Boys were threatening me just for standing up for students. But I’ll take that, and I’ll stand up for students every single time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You know, this has turned into a political fight. We’re seeing ballot measures being written, as you mentioned, school board members being elected on a lot of this. And it does seem like a pretty highly organized campaign. In California, you see one pastor in particular who’s, you know, I think helped sort of push and draft some of these measures. Do you feel like Democrats were caught off guard by all of this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I think the short answer is yes. Right? This is a scripted playbook, is a nationally driven playbook by groups that have been losing at the ballot box in congressional races in the White House and in state legislatures. And they’ve made a decision that they’re going to wage war at the local level, at the school district level and the school board. And so Democrats and progressives and others need to come back with ways to counter this. But I’ve seen data that shows that there are many who don’t agree with what these board majorities are pushing. Even some Republicans and conservatives have said this is not where the focus should be.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I would like to challenge those at some of these school board majorities rather than using these political measures to, you know, literally oppress their kids. They should be focusing on things like improving chronic absenteeism. You know, the school district in Chino Valley has a very high rate of chronic absenteeism. We know what that means for kids. And I’ve been contacted by parents in the district who’ve told me about gang fights, racially targeted tension in the schools. They should be working on those things, and I’d like to help them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>You know, I reached out to the board president to talk about these issues. You saw what happened in the board meeting. I spoke by one minute. They threw me out with security and police surrounding me that let me know that they didn’t want to talk about issues. They just want to push a political agenda. I’m saying right now, I’m ready to help them, you know, make sure their kids have the resources to learn how to read, improve their chronic absenteeism rates, make sure their kids are ready for the jobs of tomorrow, and help them with intervention programs to address gangs and violence that are running rampant in some of their schools.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So you mentioned those conversations, but you also said the word “counter.” What is, I guess, the political response to this both right now, on the ballot in 2024 —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We’ve got two more weeks in this legislative session.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah and then the legislative session. I mean you’ve written a bill in your time, or two —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Quite a few.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Should we expect anything in the next couple of weeks?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I think that there are bills going forward right now. I’ve helped to write a bill, AB 1078. This is a bill that says that our schools cannot ban books in the attempts to discriminate against LGBTQ+ kids or kids of color. If you ban a book, you will pay a fee to mitigate the impacts of that ban. What I would tell your listeners is please pay attention to what people put in front of you. This ballot measure will have misleading language. It’ll make it sound like “we are here to affirm parent rights.” But what they’re really trying to do is take away the right of students to be safe, to explore their gender identity. And so I just think it’s important that parents look out for these ballot measures. You know, be informed. Don’t allow yourselves to be confused. Every one of the bills that has been introduced in the legislature to try and counter these attacks on students — these board majorities and the pastors that you mentioned, they have rallies and they make up names and make it sound like what they’re doing is really intended to help someone. But really, it’s intended to hurt someone and it’s dangerous. I mean, literally, lives have been lost over these discussions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And what’s the message that they’re sending to kids at that school board meeting? I watch person after person after person be thrown out for offering a different view. I thought I was in a reality TV show format. You know, it was knock down, drag out. You’re out of here. You know, that’s not how our school board meetings are supposed to be run. We should be role modeling for our young people that we can use civility even when we disagree. We can agree to disagree. We don’t need to be disagreeable to anyone. And sadly, what we’re seeing is that the tenor that the school board mark majorities are sending is contributing to direct violence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right. We are going to take a short break. When we come back, we’re continuing our conversation with California’s superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurmond. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Politico Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos here today with Guy Marzorati and California’s superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurmond. All right, well, we want to go back to the beginning. Talk a little bit about how you ended up in this role. You were born at Ford Ord in Monterey, and I know you spent some time in San Jose. Tell us a little bit about your early years. I think it was the first six years with your mom was pretty good.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> That’s right. Yeah. You know, I’m the son of immigrants. You know, my mom was born in Panama. She came to the U.S., became a teacher in San Jose. My dad was a Vietnam vet who I met for the first time when I found him on the Internet around the time of my 40th birthday. He served in Vietnam. He didn’t return to our family. And so my mom raised four kids by herself in San Jose, and we were all together until she got too sick to take care of us. And my mom had cancer and when I was six, she passed away. And so the siblings got split up. I saw two of them maybe once in a ten year period. My five year old brother and I got sent to live in Philadelphia to be raised by a cousin who we never met until we showed up on her doorstep.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> She too, an immigrant. Someone who didn’t have a formal education. She took us in. You know, we struggled all the time. We didn’t have food in the household sometimes. I grew up on the free lunch program, you know, food stamps and government. You know I ate so much government cheese, I thought that USDA was a brand name sometime. But for us, these were programs to help my family to overcome poverty. The most important public program to overcome poverty was getting an education. It changed my life. I became a social worker. I work with foster youth, young people coming out of the criminal justice system. And then the last 15 years, I’ve been city council, school board member, state legislator, state superintendent. And it’s just been an honor to serve the people of the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, tell us about that, cousin. I don’t know. Other family members, friends, teachers, people in the faith community, like who are the people kind of lifting you up, keeping you afloat at that time?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> All of them. You know, my cousin, you know, I like to say that my mom gave me life and my cousin gave me a life. You know, she she really worked hard to make sure that we know that education could be for us and could you know, we got to go to great public schools. And she fought hard to make sure that we had everything that we needed. And she worked two jobs, went to night school. She got her degree. When she graduated, she had us there. You know, to see that through hard work, you can get an education and change the course of your life.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>My teachers were the same. They set a high bar and they were sending a message. It may not have been in these words, but their message was like the promise of education will help you have better circumstances than the circumstances you had when your life started. And they were making a promise that came true. And it’s the message that I deliver to young people today. Education will carry you ever you want to go, but you have to have mentors along the way. You know, as a kid, when we went to when we went to church, we know we walked 45 minutes each way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Uphill both ways?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Uphill both ways, in the snow. No shoes, literally in the snow. No. But the pastor in his family made sure that we had food and a meal and sometimes a ride home. I was given opportunities in my community of worship to do public speaking, to welcome the guests, to sing in the choir, to organize a junior choir. These things helped me to come out of my quiet, shy shell and to find my voice. Countless mentors in my life, countless caring adults who were pouring into me and saying, “Your life will be better than it started.” Education certainly at the center of that. But there’s nothing more important than having those great mentors in education. You put all that together and it meant a better experience for me, and it has driven my decision to enter in the public service.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well before we get to that, you went to Temple University\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Go Owls!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And you ran for what?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Student body president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> John Cheney years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What was your slogan? What was your platform? These were early political days.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> It was. You’re going to love this, my roommate in college wanted to be student body president, and he asked me to run as his vice president. I really wasn’t interested, but I was like, all right. And we won. And then I started to see how you could use government and politics to make a difference. We focused heavily on more funding in higher education. We asked our university to divest from the South African government at that time because it was a time when black South Africans did not have a vote or a voice. Seeing our university divest, it really like triggered some thoughts from me that maybe I’d have a career one day in politics. My slogan when I ran to become student body president and when I was elected: “Unity in diversity.” And it’s a message that I would use today with all this turmoil that we have. We have to recognize the diversity that we have, but see that we also have a lot of unity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s impressive you already kind of had the political speech down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I mean, thank you. I don’t know that I had it all plotted out like that, but I’m sad that 30, 40 years later, we’re still having the same conversations. And I believe that most Californians want more. We can do more and and we can do more together. But it was a great experience. It opened up my eyes to the possibility of politics as a way to make change. Before I ever put my name on a ballot, I was a social worker and I spent 20 years first as a social worker, and then I ran. And I’m trying to bring those same social work values of making change to politics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I’m grateful that we’ve been able to get a lot done. We’ve got, you know, universal preschool for every three and four year old, universal meals for every hungry student in our state. We secured the funding to recruit 10,000 counselors to help our kids who’ve been through depression and anxiety. And so I’m just really thrilled and grateful that we’ve been able to have these accomplishments and we can do great things for students and their families here in the state of California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And yet you have some people say, do we even need a state superintendent of public instruction? They say, we have a president of the state board of ed, what’s the case, I guess, you’ve made through your work that this is a vital position? And would you suggest, now in your second term, any changes to the job?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> Well, I think we should give the state superintendent more direct ability to affect what happens in education. You know, we have a relationship to help 1000 school districts and they each have their own school boards. And so, yeah, we have local control and I value that. I was a school board member and all the bad decisions that got passed down to our local board are the reasons why I ran for the state legislature in the first place. But we should give the state superintendent more budget authority to be able to move programs in the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What I’ve done, because of the absence of that power and authority to do those things, I’ve used, you know, the microphone that this job gives me to sponsor legislation to get things done. This year, I sponsored 20 bills in the legislature. Many of them already have been signed into law that are going to allow us to provide more resources to kids who have dyslexia. We have more resources to bring retired teachers back into the classroom. We have a major shortage in this state, so I’ve had to be more creative in how I do my work. I work very closely with our governor and with our legislature to get things done, like the $6 billion that I helped to secure, to have more Internet access for our students. Our students don’t need hotspots. They need access to top technology so they’re ready for the jobs of tomorrow in STEAM, in computer science. You know, we need folks who are ready to, you know, teach in our classes. I’m offering a $20,000 scholarship to anybody who wants to become a teacher in California, who wants to become a mental health clinician in our schools. Just give me a call, 1-800-GET AT ME and I got your scholarship right here or at the other number or other email teachinCA@cde.ca.gov, if you will. That shameless plug.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s a first. It’s usually a campaign website. So we’ll take we’ll take the CDE website and I wanna talk a little about the pandemic, but I also want to ask something. There have been questions raised in the media about your management style. Some former employees claiming a toxic work culture, saying you don’t allow staff to disagree with you. I’m curious about your response, but also like how do you just describe your management style?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> You know, my management style is very participatory. I ask people what they think, you know, I want to get the best ideas. And I’ve always believed that the way you get there is you hire the smartest people and you bring teams together to answer questions. And all those bills that I talked to you about, I pull together local superintendents, school board members, people with expertise to help us design solutions to the challenges that we have.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s very painful to hear people say the things that they’ve said. And I’ll just say that it’s just flat out untrue. And I’ll say at the same time, I’m someone who’s driving to make change. If you ask me to go slow while we have 200,000 homeless students, while we have students who are struggling to read or do basic math, I’m going to be honest. I’m always going to push to say we must do more and we must do better by our students. But I listen to all voices. I’m grateful for the staff that we have. We have 2000 staff members at the California Department of Education. I’m proud to lead them and to work with them. And anybody who has a question about my management style, you know, don’t just take my answers for it. Talk to the people on my executive team, some of the most talented leaders anywhere, some of the most diverse leaders anywhere. Very thoughtful people who are working together to do great things for our six million students.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, COVID certainly upended public education during your time as state superintendent. I want to ask you specifically about a vote that the legislature and Governor Newsom, through the budget, took in the summer of 2020 to allow local school districts a really great deal of flexibility when it came to allowing for distance learning. Was that a mistake, given how we saw things play out in the 2020-2021 school year in places like San Francisco? Was that a mistake to give school districts so much leeway over distance learning and in many cases opting not to reopen schools?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I would say that the biggest challenge that we had started immediately when the pandemic began and we learned that there were a million students in our state without a computer or access to high speed Internet. How could that be? In a state with Silicon Valley and all the technological advances that we have in this state? And so I literally went out and got donations to get computers to kids. We got a million computers and a million hotspots for students. And then I sponsored a bill that helped us to get $6 billion for broadband in our state. I basically got commitments out of all of the Internet service providers to provide low cost Internet, $15 a month. You know, we should never be in a position again where our students are affected by this digital divide. And of course, that has created learning gaps for our students. And we’re working through those learning gaps. But I’ll just tell you, California is better position than any other state in the nation to help our students recover from those learning gaps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And here’s the thing, say what you want about California schools. I wish we had the hindsight to know what the impacts of COVID would be, but a million people lost their lives during COVID. Our first move was to listen to the public health folks. How do we keep kids safe? And at the same time, how do we find a way to get them, you know, a great education? Now, look, I’m a person who likes to be in-person with other people. I would say most of us, it’s our nature. We don’t want to be isolated. But during a pandemic, a worldwide pandemic, what choice do we have but to use distance learning. And if we had the resources and tools, maybe our students would have had a better experience. But the reality is, is that all across this nation, students in every state, even those that opened sooner than California school students, experience learning gaps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But to be fair, I mean, we look at like math proficiency. It did fall here more than the national average. We’re running out of time. But who do you feel like is accountable for that? Is it at the local level? Is there you know, was there a bigger role the state could have played?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I hope we have more time to to go through it all. You know, it’s a complex web of things. And I think the reality is that the pandemic upended all of our lives. Hundreds of thousands of kids have lost a parent and in some cases more than one parent. And that’s just the reality. And this state has done more than most to address that. But in a state with local control, there is no one button to push to say all schools come back at the same time. I certainly don’t have it within my office to do. If I did, I’d be happy to use it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You would have.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tony Thurmond:\u003c/strong> I’d be happy to use it. I think it’s easy to point, to blame. And if people want to push blame in my direction, I’ll accept that. But I’m more interested in what’s the solution? This is where we are for students everywhere in the nation. What’s the solution? I’m not going to sit here and rest of my laurels, but I’ll tell you, I’ve secured funding to allow us to recruit 10,000 mental health clinicians to help our kids. I’ve been able to get $500 million to make sure we have reading coaches in the schools that have the highest needs around literacy. If you look at where we were before the pandemic, there were deficiencies that got worse in the pandemic. We’re focused now on how we get better in the state of California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That is state superintendent of public Instruction Tony Thurmond. Thanks for your time today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown, a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I’m Guy Marzorati, our engineer today is Christopher Beale.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos, we’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11959851/tony-thurmond-on-culture-wars-in-california-schools",
"authors": [
"3239",
"227"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_22235",
"news_23313"
],
"featImg": "news_11959874",
"label": "source_news_11959851"
},
"news_11959080": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11959080",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11959080",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1692926741000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1692926741,
"format": "audio",
"title": "John Duarte on Immigration, Abortion and the GOP Primary",
"headTitle": "John Duarte on Immigration, Abortion and the GOP Primary | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tax fights between business groups and the Democratic legislature intensify in Sacramento. Marisa and Guy Marzorati discuss the implications for 2024 and head to Turlock to talk with Republican Rep. John Duarte about his plant nursery business, why he split with the GOP caucus in recent votes on immigration and abortion and his thoughts on the Republican presidential primary.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey, everyone from KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati, in for Scott Shafer, and today on the Breakdown, we hit the road to the Central Valley to sit down with one of the GOP congressmen representing that region, in one of California’s key swing districts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s right. We’re thrilled to bring you our conversation with Representative John Duarte. He’s a longtime player in the state’s agricultural sector, and he won the 13th Congressional District in 2022 in a very close race against former state Assemblyman Adam Gray. Voters can expect a rematch between the two moderates next year. But we got to talk to him about immigration, abortion and other hot button issues. So stick around for that. It was a great conversation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah good conversation with him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But first Guy it’s end of session in Sacramento, the time of year when the legislature has to finish up its business this year by midnight on September 14th and the shenanigans have begun. I feel like there is a big kind of growing I mean, existing, but growing maybe to a head tension between the business community and Democrats in the legislature, as well as a number of other groups. There’s a couple of big kind of labor fights, a bill that would allow striking workers to get unemployment benefits. Of course, those are paid for by companies. It’s not a thing the business community likes to hear about. Another proposal to increase the number of guaranteed six days per year from 3 to 7. But I feel like all of this is being slightly overshadowed by a burgeoning fight over next year’s ballot measures.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I guess to back up a second, we have a ballot measure put on next November’s ballot by the business community that’s going to make it a lot harder for the state and locals to assess taxes and fees on voters. And what we saw last week was the new Assembly speaker reflects a little muscle, introducing a measure that would kind of undercut that business ballot measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Right. Basically, the Democratic-backed measure that the legislature is hoping to get done in the next few weeks, potentially put it on the March ballot. So get it on before this business measure goes on in November. That would say, look, if you know, these business groups want to increase the threshold to pass taxes, basically their measure would make any tax have to be passed by the legislature and then go before voters. It would say if you want to raise the threshold and raise some local threshold to two-thirds, your own measure on the state ballot would need to get two-thirds of the statewide vote. So both sides have accused each other of kind of changing the rules of the game on the fly. But this is, as you say, just an ongoing escalation between business groups in California, a lot of the labor backed Democrats in the state capitol. I think of almost like rational deterrence, right? These groups are just arming up so much on either side that it almost seems like we could be headed toward some kind of compromise.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’ve seen this before where a ballot measure like the one business groups have qualified can be taken off. It doesn’t have to go on the November ballot. There can be a deal reached between now and then. And I think as you’re seeing so much escalation on both sides, it could point to that. The question is at what price for Democrats? Because we’ve seen this before, where they’ve had to negotiate with the business community to get a measure off the ballot. A couple of years ago, it meant that they had to basically put a halt on all local soda taxes. What’s the price this time to stop this measure from getting on the ballot that really, and we can talk about some of the details. I think it’s a fair comparison to something like Prop 13, maybe not with the immediate financial impact, but just the reach.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, it is really extreme. And I think that that is one area that I’m going to be interested to watch this kind of positioning occur because you mentioned sort of labor versus business. I think that the tax measure the Business Roundtable put on next fall’s ballot goes way beyond that normal kind of breakdown because it does so clearly go after local jurisdictions and their ability to raise revenue. I think you’re going to have a really interesting group if this stays on the ballot of bedfellows, because it’s going to affect red, you know, Central Valley cities and counties, special districts just as much as blue ones. And at the end of the day, a lot of the services that are provided by government are not controversial or political. We’re talking police and fire and, you know, in some cases, you know, picking up the streets. I mean, I really think that if this is an attempt by the new speaker and Democrats and labor and, you know, the League of California Cities and all these other groups to kind of push this off the ballot, they will be flexing that muscle in a kind of bigger coalition than we’ve seen. And I think just generally, it’s going to be a fascinating campaign on both sides to kind of see how they try to take what just took me like an hour to just go through this measure and understand it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Oh, there’s so much, look we’re going to spend a lot of time, I anticipate unpacking this business tax measure. But one of the impacts we talked about today was just on local measures that have already passed. There’s a retroactive element to this that would basically say measures passed in the 2022 election if they didn’t really specify a timetable for the taxation, they would be wiped out. And you’d have there’s plenty of local taxes here in the Bay Area in San Francisco, many in the South Bay —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We’re talking billions of dollars of revenue —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> That would be thrown out by this, potentially.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I looked at this. I mean on the list that might actually go down is a $20 million a year tax in Oakland, $10 million a year tax in Culver City, that is real money for these jurisdictions. So, as you said, we’ll be watching this really closely. I think the other question is just going to be the potential for litigation and just the kind of, you know, hornet’s nest —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Oh, city attorney’s nightmare.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> City attorney’s nightmare for sure. All right. So we’re going to take a short break now. We will talk about this plenty in the months ahead. When we come back, our conversation Wednesday with Central Valley Congressman John Duarte. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos here with Guy Marzorati and we are excited to be in Turlock today in the office of Central Valley Republican Congressman John Duarte. He was elected in a very close race in 2022 to represent Congressional District 13. It runs down the I-5 corridor from around Modesto to the area west of Fresno. Congressman, welcome to the Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Good to be here Marisa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Thanks for taking some time. So as we said, we’re in Turlock. And I wondered if you would just start by telling listeners a little bit about your district, what gets grown here versus other parts of the Central Valley further south?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Excellent. Well, this district, as you said, goes from Lathrop up just west of Stockton, all the way down the Highway 5 corridor includes West Modesto, which is one of the richest, most heritage farm areas in America, all the way down to Coalinga on the very south and west end, Riverdale. And so as you go up through the valley, we have more almond acreage in this district than any other district in America, probably any other political district in the world, for that matter, because when you’re number one on California in almonds, you’re number one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Tell us a little bit about your family business. This is something that your parents started, is that right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, yeah. Duarte Nursery, Duarte Trees & Vines is a business we have here in Hughson, California that was begun by my parents in 1988. I joined them in ’89, kind of co-founded the business with them, my brother Jeff and my mom and dad, Jim and Anita all started it, built it up kind of out of the ashes of previous nursery companies my parents had had. And it was a real privilege to come out of college and be able to just be able to bootstrap a company together and kind of grow it with my parents, with my brother Jeff, and now my wife Alexandra and my son Isaac are full time employees at the nursery. Isaac just came back out of Cal Poly with a horticulture degree. So we’re very pleased, very family —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Three generations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Your parents — tough bosses?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> [laughs]\u003c/em> Well, we were you know, my brother and I owned half the company from the beginning. And so my dad was the president. He’s retired since ’06, I became president of the company in 2006. And now my brother Jeff is running it, I’ve kind of dumped it on him —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You have another job —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> Yeah I’ve got some things to do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I want to ask, though, I think you majored in finance. Was numbers kind of always your forte? Were you thinking about this burgeoning business venture when you did that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I’ve always known I wanted to run my own business, be have my own business. Even as a young kid, my dad was always entrepreneurial and that’s the experience we had growing up. And I had no doubt that I didn’t want to work for somebody else, per say. So at San Diego State, I chose finance just because the classes looked more interesting as an undergraduate business program and looked at the management, looked at the marketing, looked at accounting, looked at, you know, real estate emphasis and chose finance because it just looked to be the most analytical, insightful, and then came to work at the nursery for five years from ’89 through ’94 and then started the MBA program at University of the Pacific.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Oh, wow.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> So I’m actually a ’97 graduate of the Eberhardt School of Business, also with an MBA. So that’s plenty of education for a nursery guy and a farmer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And what seems unique about the nursery business is a lot of your clients are other growers. So it seems like you’re constantly kind of in communication with growers in this area, farmers, probably got to know a lot of people through that business.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. So when I came out of college in finance, I grew up in San Diego, Chula Vista area, came back to Modesto having been born here but not grown up. And my dad says “We’re starting the grapevine nursery. Glad to see you. You’re the sales department.” And so I got to go out and take my finance degree, which had absolutely no relevance whatsoever to selling grapevines.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, sales is a different —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> So I had to, you know, go study grape vines and grape pests and genetics and you know, I think I became a relative expert in that in a few years. I was presenting at conferences. At our peak, you know, the nursing goes up and down, peak years we’re serving about 3000 agriculture clients. So we know agriculture very, very well and agriculture knows the Duarte family and myself very, very well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah I mean, propagation and the stuff you’re talking about is actually pretty scientific too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we were the first of the tree nurseries, we started in grapevines and expanded into almonds and pistachios and walnuts, and really solved a couple of major environmental issues through our technology. We invested in Ph.D. research and we have a 11,000 square foot biotechnology laboratory on-site at the nursery. We really approached the nursery in a way that was integrated in a way nobody had approached a tree and vine nursery in the world before. We started micro-propagation. We started doing transgenic work with Monsanto. We actually, in the 1990s had an apple that wouldn’t get worms with the same Bt gene in the apple tree that has been in the corn and eliminates insecticides. That became a question for the marketplace that didn’t pan out. So we had to abandon it. But one thing we’ve done is we’re cloned root stocks, meaning that instead of planting seeds to make trees, we make sure the trees are genetically identical, both top and bottom. And so those advancements have led for better water utilization, more salt tolerance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’re able to grow almonds in areas in the delta and down in the south valley where the water quality — where they’re inundated with too much water at times or the water’s too salty or has too much boron. And we can help growers adapt — almond growing, pistachio growing, walnut growing to areas where it wasn’t feasible prior to that. So we like to invest in research, but that’s not why we’re here today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Very interesting, we won’t just ask you gardening questions, I promise. Even though that’s kind of tempting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You, you know, through all these years was politics at all of interest to your family? Was that a conversation around the dinner table? How did that —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> You know, the Duarte family and I’ll just go back to my dad because that’s the example I grew up with, is never afraid of a fight. You know, I remember when you were down in San Diego, we had then mayor of San Diego, Roger Hedgecock, great guy out on Otay Mesa in the middle of nowhere talking about water and issues at the time that my dad was dealing with. We came up here, we had planning and zoning issues and building permit issues, just trying to build a greenhouse operation, which was ridiculous that we had to struggle through. And we’ve always been moderate Republicans, but very partisan Republicans. We’ve always believed that the Republican Party really had the answers for business, freedom, opportunity, affordability. And so we’ve always been in the Republican Party, but never, never on the fringe of it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> It seems like the nature of the business, you’re constantly interacting with government, whether it’s about water, you know —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well I tell a lot of farmer friends I have had, you know, like all of u, most of the time, all seen people. “I don’t want to deal with politics.” Well, if you don’t deal with politics and policy, it comes to you anyways. You’re going to be dealing with it. You’re going to be dealing with results that you didn’t have a part in developing. And so, I think more out of necessity than anything we’ve been engaged in in politics, fundraising for different candidates over the years. We’ve been very engaged on policy. We got played a major role in getting the tractor tax taken off of tractors. We played a very lead role in getting the sales tax taken off of the trees and vines that we and other nurseries sell under the food exemption in 1997. So when I went to Farm Bureau for endorsement, saying, “Hey, look, I’ve got I’ve got more deliverables as a civilian than some of my opponents did after, you know, in some cases having a career in politics.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, you got a lot of notoriety for a long running battle you actually had with the federal government. This was, I don’t want to get too far into the weeds, but it was essentially over the way you plowed a piece of land that you owned in Northern California. You ended up settling the case. I’m curious, like, did that make you more likely to run for this job? Did it draw you into politics more? What did you learn from that experience?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> It’s hard to say, retrospectively, that set me up to do this. But remember, I was the guy that sued the government to begin with. \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> So I wasn’t you know, I was open for a challenge, you know. So I don’t know if that struggle —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Chicken or the egg kind of thing?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Or if I’m just that guy. And I saw America just, you know it last year we were heading toward socialism. I personally, from my values, think that is bad. I think that working families will be crushed by socialism. I think we need to get water on the farms, drill American oil, expand affordability and opportunity so that the American dream is alive for new immigrants, for families that are struggling to break out of, break out of their their day jobs and accomplish something for themselves. And that was being shut down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I don’t know that the struggles and losses of the past drove me, other than I really believed I could win this seat and that this seat would be a very important seat to win, to keep America from drifting further left than than I thought it should, and realigning it back towards a centrist, you know, somewhat conservative, free market opportunity society that I think is important to many people in this district particularly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to a Political breakdown from KQED Public Radio. I’m Marisa Lagos with Guy Marzorati, we are in the office of Central Valley Republican Congressman John Duarte.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So you said socialist several times. What does that mean to you? What do you what are you talking about when you talk about the country going socialist?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Ultimately it means that government becomes the prime state of the entire society. It’s no longer that family, which I believe is the prime estate. You know, we start teaching our kids what we want to teach them in school. We teach them that government is the only force that can protect them from bigotry and discrimination and that their identity is a problem one way or another and they need government to arbitrate, you know, how they relate to other people. So socialist means the government takes on this kind of social welfare role, over all family issues and cultural issues within our society. That’s just wrong.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And then more familiarly to a lot of people, it means the government starts to decide which companies are successful. It starts to decide which farmer gets prosecuted for planting wheat in a wheat field that other farmers farm just fine. You you start to see government used as a cudgel against that farmer who stands up to the government and simply asks for a hearing to show them, I’m just planting wheat, you guys are idiots. So socialism to me means an overbearing government that starts to really push down on individual liberty and opportunity. And then as we see play out now, affordability is gone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I mean, but cultural issues aside, without the government intervention, what would this valley be?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Without the government intervention?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I mean in terms of water delivery, I mean, isn’t that isn’t that kind of central to how the agricultural business operates?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, let’s realize that here we’re sitting in Turlock. This is the first municipal irrigation district in the country. The farmers in Turlock Irrigation District, and then a year later Modesto Irrigation District taxed themselves back to the 1880s. Right? Taxed themselves to build the diversion at La Grange and begin the water infrastructure that we have. These canals that we drive by were dug with horses. Right? No diesel power. And that was the first irrigation districts in California. Then we built out of local money the first Don Pedro Reservoir that provided — so if you look around Modesto, you say, wow — I was just at Del Monte Cannery this morning. We were celebrating the Del Monte Peach growers. You can go to Gallo Winery. You can you can go through the whole Beard industrial tract and look at how Modesto has a disproportionate number of state secretaries of agriculture, national secretaries of agriculture. You look at Modesto’s got the biggest canneries, the biggest wineries in the world. My family’s in the nursery business. Duarte Nursery — I’ll say that one first — but Burchell Nursery, Wilson Nursery, Green Tree Nursery, Driver Nursery. All right, here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when left to our own devices with local resources and local leadership. We built this oasis without the federal government. And so to say that while the federal government’s doing everything well, maybe they’re doing a lot of things, but maybe there’s not enough freedom for local communities to solve their own problems. And I don’t believe for a moment that we couldn’t solve water and infrastructure with better, more local control and without federal interference and some resources.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But it does require some collectivism to your point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Oh, we need a government. I’m in the U.S. Congress, I’m very proud to walk up the steps and see the Capitol building and participate in the government we have. It just doesn’t need to get bigger at the exclusion of family, of local control, of individual initiative, free enterprise, opportunity and affordability.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, we want to talk to you also about immigration. You made some headlines. You were one of a few Republicans earlier this year to vote against a GOP backed immigration bill. This would have funded construction of the border wall. It would have limited the asylum system. What was kind of your thinking going into that, ultimately why you decided to vote against the bill?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Sure. Well, first of all, it was a bill that passed Congress that said, “Let’s build the border wall.” Do we see the border security? No, we don’t see the border security, even though it passed despite me voting against it. It’s not doing anything. It was just a messaging bill. Because there was nothing in it for the other side. So I was suggesting, hey, I really do want a secure border, you know, And if you want to put the border security in place, we need a DACA fix, we need a DACA fix right now. If you want a secure border and you want to ramp up E-Verify, which is a major problem I had with that bill. If you want to force me to become a policeman at my own company with families who have been relying on working at my company for decades, and you wanna do the same thing to every other family and every company throughout the Central Valley greatly. Then let’s talk about a guest worker program. Let’s talk about bringing our working families out of the shadows. Let’s talk about getting a DACA fix done. And if we talk about those things along with border security, then we might actually get these problems fixed. If all you want to do is pass a messaging bill that if passed, would disenfranchise working families, would disenfranchise employers. It’s not going to pass. It’s not going to do anything. If it does just do those things and not solve DACA, have a guest worker program, fix some long term lingering immigration issues — that are becoming public safety issues, these families can’t come out of the shadows — then you’re just messaging and I’m not interested in that message.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, your party has moved pretty far to the right, and a lot of the things you’re talking about are kind of outside of the mainstream for for the Republican Party. What are those conversations like with folks within your caucus? How are you making that case to them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, in some cases successfully and in some cases unsuccessfully. I mean, obviously, you know, if you go to the Judiciary Committee and you go to the subcommittee on immigration, that’s a fairly conservative group of Republicans in there, and they have their own perspectives. But if you go to the, you know, other bills I’m on, we’ve got, you know, Maria Salazar from Florida. She’s got the Dignity Act, I’m on board with her on that, I’m one of the one of the few Republican co-sponsors with her there. If you go to Lori Chavez-DeRemer, she’s got the DREAM Act dealing with the Dreamers. I’m one of a few Republicans on that with her. So there’s a number of bipartisan immigration efforts going along. I think they’re viable if we get leadership. Right now, we have border chaos. You know, down at the border is complete chaos. And our current president’s been sending his vice president down there to deal with it, look at it. She has lunch about 80 miles from the border and comes home.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You’re talking about the Texas border?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Texas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you think the California border is a mess?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Yeah, the whole the whole border is a mess. And we’re not doing anything about it. There’s been no legislation change. Nothing’s been legislated. We simply have an executive, you know, President Biden who doesn’t want to deal with the problem down there for whatever reason, and it’s making it a huge mess.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So what do you see as the roadblocks? I mean, let’s take specifically you’ve been working on a bill around migrant farm workers. That’s something supported by Democrats and Republicans in California. What’s holding that back? I mean, that’s passed the House before. What’s the roadblock there?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, the biggest roadblock to anything happening in immigration the last 20, 30 years, really since 1986, when Reagan did the big amnesty program…that bill had border security in it. That 86 immigration bill had border security in it. So until we pass border security and get it implemented, there’s been a lot of reluctance towards anything else. Now, if we want to do it step wise and say we will secure the border, then we will vote now also to solve these problems. That would be great.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But that seems, I mean it’s been ten years since the last big compromise reform on that. It seems like Republican voters have moved to the right, Democratic voters have moved to the left on this issue. You’re still, you still have hope?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> I have a lot of hope. Because I’m looking at, you know, this is a Voting Rights Act district. This is a desert, California 13, that is 60% Hispanic by voter. Right? So this is a Voting Rights Act district. There’s going to be more of these come to play. And Hispanic families are starting to look at the same problems we’re all looking at. They’re not you know, we don’t want to pass laws that are, you know, insulting that would disenfranchise them if implemented, which the border security bill and the E-Verify clause of it would have. But they’re staring at the same issues we’re staring at. And so I want to make sure that that in the Republican Party, we’ve got an enticing message for Hispanic families to look at Republican candidates like myself and say, you know what? Maybe there’s some people in that party that that aren’t with us on everything, but there’s a lot of people in the Democrat Party that are hurting us. You know, we’re not drilling American oil. We’re not getting water on the farms. We have border chaos. We have groups that want to defund the police. So, you know, there’s real decisions to be made. And I want to put up an offering of a moderate Republican agenda that really solves problems for working families and shows them that the American dream is still alive and that we’re fighting for their access to the American dream.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, switching gears a little bit, talking about a couple of other votes you’ve taken. So you were the only Republican that voted against amendments to the defense bill that would have blocked the Department of Defense from paying for abortions and sex reassignment surgeries. Why that vote? Is that about tying those issues to defense authorization or, you know, talk about that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> That was the Hyde Amendment. The major problem I had with that was when I ran, I said I’m a moderate on abortion. All right? A, it’s a state issue. I believe women should have access to first trimester abortion. And I will vote against any effort to federalize abortion law. So that was simply fulfilling a campaign promise. Now, we never get to choose exactly how these things are packaged up, right? You know, sometimes you get a narrow abortion amendment. Sometimes it’s packaged in an appropriations bill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But, you know, women go in the military and they may be stationed wherever the military stations them. It could be a state with very restrictive abortion laws. And it’s a medical service that the military, you know, provides. It should not be a woman’s cost to bear if she has to go to another state to get medical services that are available where she needs them just because she’s in the military. I don’t want women not enlisting because we restrict their access to certain medical services based on what state they’re in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> The state party’s actually considering removing opposition to a federally protected right to abortion from the party platform. What do you make of that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> I really want to keep abortion a state’s issue. Now, I think in California, I will starkly disagree with some of the extreme left end of that with full term and elective late-term. Those things I disagree with. But we’ve argued for years, decades now that abortion is a state’s rights issue, and I think that’s where it belongs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right, just a couple more questions. The first Republican debate is tonight. We’re taping this Wednesday. I’m curious who you’re supporting next year and what you’re looking for in these debates and this just campaign moving forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, I want my party to retake government and I’m looking at the debate without any opinion on the individual players. I’m going to vote Republican. It’s baked in. I’m going to support the Republican candidate for president. But I want that candidate to be whoever can deliver us the biggest win, whoever can appeal to the moderate voters and bring us victory in the White House, also the Senate, also Congress. And so I’m just looking for whoever successfully resonates with the most Americans possible, which probably means a more moderate candidate. But I’m not picking any names. I just, I want to win and I want to get America back to affordability opportunity and the American dream.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Does a Trump nomination make your job more hard next fall?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s a turnout model. It’s lots of moving parts. All I know is I can do my job well. I can vote my district. I can be accessible and engage in my district and hope people know what I’m about. And if that’s not what the people want, then I’ll go make some trees and vines.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Alright, when he’s not voting in Congress he’s running the poinsettia farm. Congressman Duarte, thank you so much for having us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, Marisa, Guy thank you for having me, great speaking to you here today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That is going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. We are a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Christopher Beale. I’m Guy Marzorati.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos, we’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 6004,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 90
},
"modified": 1700874532,
"excerpt": "Plus, tax fights ramp up in Sacramento over a business-backed initiative headed for the 2024 ballot.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Plus, tax fights ramp up in Sacramento over a business-backed initiative headed for the 2024 ballot.",
"title": "John Duarte on Immigration, Abortion and the GOP Primary | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "John Duarte on Immigration, Abortion and the GOP Primary",
"datePublished": "2023-08-24T18:25:41-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:08:52-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "john-duarte-on-immigration-abortion-and-the-gop-primary",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC2892870415.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11959080/john-duarte-on-immigration-abortion-and-the-gop-primary",
"audioDuration": 1835000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tax fights between business groups and the Democratic legislature intensify in Sacramento. Marisa and Guy Marzorati discuss the implications for 2024 and head to Turlock to talk with Republican Rep. John Duarte about his plant nursery business, why he split with the GOP caucus in recent votes on immigration and abortion and his thoughts on the Republican presidential primary.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey, everyone from KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati, in for Scott Shafer, and today on the Breakdown, we hit the road to the Central Valley to sit down with one of the GOP congressmen representing that region, in one of California’s key swing districts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That’s right. We’re thrilled to bring you our conversation with Representative John Duarte. He’s a longtime player in the state’s agricultural sector, and he won the 13th Congressional District in 2022 in a very close race against former state Assemblyman Adam Gray. Voters can expect a rematch between the two moderates next year. But we got to talk to him about immigration, abortion and other hot button issues. So stick around for that. It was a great conversation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah good conversation with him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But first Guy it’s end of session in Sacramento, the time of year when the legislature has to finish up its business this year by midnight on September 14th and the shenanigans have begun. I feel like there is a big kind of growing I mean, existing, but growing maybe to a head tension between the business community and Democrats in the legislature, as well as a number of other groups. There’s a couple of big kind of labor fights, a bill that would allow striking workers to get unemployment benefits. Of course, those are paid for by companies. It’s not a thing the business community likes to hear about. Another proposal to increase the number of guaranteed six days per year from 3 to 7. But I feel like all of this is being slightly overshadowed by a burgeoning fight over next year’s ballot measures.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I guess to back up a second, we have a ballot measure put on next November’s ballot by the business community that’s going to make it a lot harder for the state and locals to assess taxes and fees on voters. And what we saw last week was the new Assembly speaker reflects a little muscle, introducing a measure that would kind of undercut that business ballot measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Right. Basically, the Democratic-backed measure that the legislature is hoping to get done in the next few weeks, potentially put it on the March ballot. So get it on before this business measure goes on in November. That would say, look, if you know, these business groups want to increase the threshold to pass taxes, basically their measure would make any tax have to be passed by the legislature and then go before voters. It would say if you want to raise the threshold and raise some local threshold to two-thirds, your own measure on the state ballot would need to get two-thirds of the statewide vote. So both sides have accused each other of kind of changing the rules of the game on the fly. But this is, as you say, just an ongoing escalation between business groups in California, a lot of the labor backed Democrats in the state capitol. I think of almost like rational deterrence, right? These groups are just arming up so much on either side that it almost seems like we could be headed toward some kind of compromise.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’ve seen this before where a ballot measure like the one business groups have qualified can be taken off. It doesn’t have to go on the November ballot. There can be a deal reached between now and then. And I think as you’re seeing so much escalation on both sides, it could point to that. The question is at what price for Democrats? Because we’ve seen this before, where they’ve had to negotiate with the business community to get a measure off the ballot. A couple of years ago, it meant that they had to basically put a halt on all local soda taxes. What’s the price this time to stop this measure from getting on the ballot that really, and we can talk about some of the details. I think it’s a fair comparison to something like Prop 13, maybe not with the immediate financial impact, but just the reach.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, it is really extreme. And I think that that is one area that I’m going to be interested to watch this kind of positioning occur because you mentioned sort of labor versus business. I think that the tax measure the Business Roundtable put on next fall’s ballot goes way beyond that normal kind of breakdown because it does so clearly go after local jurisdictions and their ability to raise revenue. I think you’re going to have a really interesting group if this stays on the ballot of bedfellows, because it’s going to affect red, you know, Central Valley cities and counties, special districts just as much as blue ones. And at the end of the day, a lot of the services that are provided by government are not controversial or political. We’re talking police and fire and, you know, in some cases, you know, picking up the streets. I mean, I really think that if this is an attempt by the new speaker and Democrats and labor and, you know, the League of California Cities and all these other groups to kind of push this off the ballot, they will be flexing that muscle in a kind of bigger coalition than we’ve seen. And I think just generally, it’s going to be a fascinating campaign on both sides to kind of see how they try to take what just took me like an hour to just go through this measure and understand it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Oh, there’s so much, look we’re going to spend a lot of time, I anticipate unpacking this business tax measure. But one of the impacts we talked about today was just on local measures that have already passed. There’s a retroactive element to this that would basically say measures passed in the 2022 election if they didn’t really specify a timetable for the taxation, they would be wiped out. And you’d have there’s plenty of local taxes here in the Bay Area in San Francisco, many in the South Bay —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> We’re talking billions of dollars of revenue —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> That would be thrown out by this, potentially.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I looked at this. I mean on the list that might actually go down is a $20 million a year tax in Oakland, $10 million a year tax in Culver City, that is real money for these jurisdictions. So, as you said, we’ll be watching this really closely. I think the other question is just going to be the potential for litigation and just the kind of, you know, hornet’s nest —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Oh, city attorney’s nightmare.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> City attorney’s nightmare for sure. All right. So we’re going to take a short break now. We will talk about this plenty in the months ahead. When we come back, our conversation Wednesday with Central Valley Congressman John Duarte. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos here with Guy Marzorati and we are excited to be in Turlock today in the office of Central Valley Republican Congressman John Duarte. He was elected in a very close race in 2022 to represent Congressional District 13. It runs down the I-5 corridor from around Modesto to the area west of Fresno. Congressman, welcome to the Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Good to be here Marisa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Thanks for taking some time. So as we said, we’re in Turlock. And I wondered if you would just start by telling listeners a little bit about your district, what gets grown here versus other parts of the Central Valley further south?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Excellent. Well, this district, as you said, goes from Lathrop up just west of Stockton, all the way down the Highway 5 corridor includes West Modesto, which is one of the richest, most heritage farm areas in America, all the way down to Coalinga on the very south and west end, Riverdale. And so as you go up through the valley, we have more almond acreage in this district than any other district in America, probably any other political district in the world, for that matter, because when you’re number one on California in almonds, you’re number one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Tell us a little bit about your family business. This is something that your parents started, is that right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, yeah. Duarte Nursery, Duarte Trees & Vines is a business we have here in Hughson, California that was begun by my parents in 1988. I joined them in ’89, kind of co-founded the business with them, my brother Jeff and my mom and dad, Jim and Anita all started it, built it up kind of out of the ashes of previous nursery companies my parents had had. And it was a real privilege to come out of college and be able to just be able to bootstrap a company together and kind of grow it with my parents, with my brother Jeff, and now my wife Alexandra and my son Isaac are full time employees at the nursery. Isaac just came back out of Cal Poly with a horticulture degree. So we’re very pleased, very family —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Three generations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Your parents — tough bosses?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> [laughs]\u003c/em> Well, we were you know, my brother and I owned half the company from the beginning. And so my dad was the president. He’s retired since ’06, I became president of the company in 2006. And now my brother Jeff is running it, I’ve kind of dumped it on him —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You have another job —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> Yeah I’ve got some things to do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I want to ask, though, I think you majored in finance. Was numbers kind of always your forte? Were you thinking about this burgeoning business venture when you did that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I’ve always known I wanted to run my own business, be have my own business. Even as a young kid, my dad was always entrepreneurial and that’s the experience we had growing up. And I had no doubt that I didn’t want to work for somebody else, per say. So at San Diego State, I chose finance just because the classes looked more interesting as an undergraduate business program and looked at the management, looked at the marketing, looked at accounting, looked at, you know, real estate emphasis and chose finance because it just looked to be the most analytical, insightful, and then came to work at the nursery for five years from ’89 through ’94 and then started the MBA program at University of the Pacific.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Oh, wow.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> So I’m actually a ’97 graduate of the Eberhardt School of Business, also with an MBA. So that’s plenty of education for a nursery guy and a farmer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And what seems unique about the nursery business is a lot of your clients are other growers. So it seems like you’re constantly kind of in communication with growers in this area, farmers, probably got to know a lot of people through that business.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. So when I came out of college in finance, I grew up in San Diego, Chula Vista area, came back to Modesto having been born here but not grown up. And my dad says “We’re starting the grapevine nursery. Glad to see you. You’re the sales department.” And so I got to go out and take my finance degree, which had absolutely no relevance whatsoever to selling grapevines.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, sales is a different —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> So I had to, you know, go study grape vines and grape pests and genetics and you know, I think I became a relative expert in that in a few years. I was presenting at conferences. At our peak, you know, the nursing goes up and down, peak years we’re serving about 3000 agriculture clients. So we know agriculture very, very well and agriculture knows the Duarte family and myself very, very well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah I mean, propagation and the stuff you’re talking about is actually pretty scientific too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we were the first of the tree nurseries, we started in grapevines and expanded into almonds and pistachios and walnuts, and really solved a couple of major environmental issues through our technology. We invested in Ph.D. research and we have a 11,000 square foot biotechnology laboratory on-site at the nursery. We really approached the nursery in a way that was integrated in a way nobody had approached a tree and vine nursery in the world before. We started micro-propagation. We started doing transgenic work with Monsanto. We actually, in the 1990s had an apple that wouldn’t get worms with the same Bt gene in the apple tree that has been in the corn and eliminates insecticides. That became a question for the marketplace that didn’t pan out. So we had to abandon it. But one thing we’ve done is we’re cloned root stocks, meaning that instead of planting seeds to make trees, we make sure the trees are genetically identical, both top and bottom. And so those advancements have led for better water utilization, more salt tolerance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’re able to grow almonds in areas in the delta and down in the south valley where the water quality — where they’re inundated with too much water at times or the water’s too salty or has too much boron. And we can help growers adapt — almond growing, pistachio growing, walnut growing to areas where it wasn’t feasible prior to that. So we like to invest in research, but that’s not why we’re here today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Very interesting, we won’t just ask you gardening questions, I promise. Even though that’s kind of tempting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You, you know, through all these years was politics at all of interest to your family? Was that a conversation around the dinner table? How did that —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> You know, the Duarte family and I’ll just go back to my dad because that’s the example I grew up with, is never afraid of a fight. You know, I remember when you were down in San Diego, we had then mayor of San Diego, Roger Hedgecock, great guy out on Otay Mesa in the middle of nowhere talking about water and issues at the time that my dad was dealing with. We came up here, we had planning and zoning issues and building permit issues, just trying to build a greenhouse operation, which was ridiculous that we had to struggle through. And we’ve always been moderate Republicans, but very partisan Republicans. We’ve always believed that the Republican Party really had the answers for business, freedom, opportunity, affordability. And so we’ve always been in the Republican Party, but never, never on the fringe of it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> It seems like the nature of the business, you’re constantly interacting with government, whether it’s about water, you know —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well I tell a lot of farmer friends I have had, you know, like all of u, most of the time, all seen people. “I don’t want to deal with politics.” Well, if you don’t deal with politics and policy, it comes to you anyways. You’re going to be dealing with it. You’re going to be dealing with results that you didn’t have a part in developing. And so, I think more out of necessity than anything we’ve been engaged in in politics, fundraising for different candidates over the years. We’ve been very engaged on policy. We got played a major role in getting the tractor tax taken off of tractors. We played a very lead role in getting the sales tax taken off of the trees and vines that we and other nurseries sell under the food exemption in 1997. So when I went to Farm Bureau for endorsement, saying, “Hey, look, I’ve got I’ve got more deliverables as a civilian than some of my opponents did after, you know, in some cases having a career in politics.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, you got a lot of notoriety for a long running battle you actually had with the federal government. This was, I don’t want to get too far into the weeds, but it was essentially over the way you plowed a piece of land that you owned in Northern California. You ended up settling the case. I’m curious, like, did that make you more likely to run for this job? Did it draw you into politics more? What did you learn from that experience?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> It’s hard to say, retrospectively, that set me up to do this. But remember, I was the guy that sued the government to begin with. \u003cem>[laughs]\u003c/em> So I wasn’t you know, I was open for a challenge, you know. So I don’t know if that struggle —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Chicken or the egg kind of thing?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Or if I’m just that guy. And I saw America just, you know it last year we were heading toward socialism. I personally, from my values, think that is bad. I think that working families will be crushed by socialism. I think we need to get water on the farms, drill American oil, expand affordability and opportunity so that the American dream is alive for new immigrants, for families that are struggling to break out of, break out of their their day jobs and accomplish something for themselves. And that was being shut down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I don’t know that the struggles and losses of the past drove me, other than I really believed I could win this seat and that this seat would be a very important seat to win, to keep America from drifting further left than than I thought it should, and realigning it back towards a centrist, you know, somewhat conservative, free market opportunity society that I think is important to many people in this district particularly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to a Political breakdown from KQED Public Radio. I’m Marisa Lagos with Guy Marzorati, we are in the office of Central Valley Republican Congressman John Duarte.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So you said socialist several times. What does that mean to you? What do you what are you talking about when you talk about the country going socialist?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Ultimately it means that government becomes the prime state of the entire society. It’s no longer that family, which I believe is the prime estate. You know, we start teaching our kids what we want to teach them in school. We teach them that government is the only force that can protect them from bigotry and discrimination and that their identity is a problem one way or another and they need government to arbitrate, you know, how they relate to other people. So socialist means the government takes on this kind of social welfare role, over all family issues and cultural issues within our society. That’s just wrong.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And then more familiarly to a lot of people, it means the government starts to decide which companies are successful. It starts to decide which farmer gets prosecuted for planting wheat in a wheat field that other farmers farm just fine. You you start to see government used as a cudgel against that farmer who stands up to the government and simply asks for a hearing to show them, I’m just planting wheat, you guys are idiots. So socialism to me means an overbearing government that starts to really push down on individual liberty and opportunity. And then as we see play out now, affordability is gone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I mean, but cultural issues aside, without the government intervention, what would this valley be?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Without the government intervention?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I mean in terms of water delivery, I mean, isn’t that isn’t that kind of central to how the agricultural business operates?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, let’s realize that here we’re sitting in Turlock. This is the first municipal irrigation district in the country. The farmers in Turlock Irrigation District, and then a year later Modesto Irrigation District taxed themselves back to the 1880s. Right? Taxed themselves to build the diversion at La Grange and begin the water infrastructure that we have. These canals that we drive by were dug with horses. Right? No diesel power. And that was the first irrigation districts in California. Then we built out of local money the first Don Pedro Reservoir that provided — so if you look around Modesto, you say, wow — I was just at Del Monte Cannery this morning. We were celebrating the Del Monte Peach growers. You can go to Gallo Winery. You can you can go through the whole Beard industrial tract and look at how Modesto has a disproportionate number of state secretaries of agriculture, national secretaries of agriculture. You look at Modesto’s got the biggest canneries, the biggest wineries in the world. My family’s in the nursery business. Duarte Nursery — I’ll say that one first — but Burchell Nursery, Wilson Nursery, Green Tree Nursery, Driver Nursery. All right, here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when left to our own devices with local resources and local leadership. We built this oasis without the federal government. And so to say that while the federal government’s doing everything well, maybe they’re doing a lot of things, but maybe there’s not enough freedom for local communities to solve their own problems. And I don’t believe for a moment that we couldn’t solve water and infrastructure with better, more local control and without federal interference and some resources.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> But it does require some collectivism to your point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Oh, we need a government. I’m in the U.S. Congress, I’m very proud to walk up the steps and see the Capitol building and participate in the government we have. It just doesn’t need to get bigger at the exclusion of family, of local control, of individual initiative, free enterprise, opportunity and affordability.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, we want to talk to you also about immigration. You made some headlines. You were one of a few Republicans earlier this year to vote against a GOP backed immigration bill. This would have funded construction of the border wall. It would have limited the asylum system. What was kind of your thinking going into that, ultimately why you decided to vote against the bill?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Sure. Well, first of all, it was a bill that passed Congress that said, “Let’s build the border wall.” Do we see the border security? No, we don’t see the border security, even though it passed despite me voting against it. It’s not doing anything. It was just a messaging bill. Because there was nothing in it for the other side. So I was suggesting, hey, I really do want a secure border, you know, And if you want to put the border security in place, we need a DACA fix, we need a DACA fix right now. If you want a secure border and you want to ramp up E-Verify, which is a major problem I had with that bill. If you want to force me to become a policeman at my own company with families who have been relying on working at my company for decades, and you wanna do the same thing to every other family and every company throughout the Central Valley greatly. Then let’s talk about a guest worker program. Let’s talk about bringing our working families out of the shadows. Let’s talk about getting a DACA fix done. And if we talk about those things along with border security, then we might actually get these problems fixed. If all you want to do is pass a messaging bill that if passed, would disenfranchise working families, would disenfranchise employers. It’s not going to pass. It’s not going to do anything. If it does just do those things and not solve DACA, have a guest worker program, fix some long term lingering immigration issues — that are becoming public safety issues, these families can’t come out of the shadows — then you’re just messaging and I’m not interested in that message.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, your party has moved pretty far to the right, and a lot of the things you’re talking about are kind of outside of the mainstream for for the Republican Party. What are those conversations like with folks within your caucus? How are you making that case to them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, in some cases successfully and in some cases unsuccessfully. I mean, obviously, you know, if you go to the Judiciary Committee and you go to the subcommittee on immigration, that’s a fairly conservative group of Republicans in there, and they have their own perspectives. But if you go to the, you know, other bills I’m on, we’ve got, you know, Maria Salazar from Florida. She’s got the Dignity Act, I’m on board with her on that, I’m one of the one of the few Republican co-sponsors with her there. If you go to Lori Chavez-DeRemer, she’s got the DREAM Act dealing with the Dreamers. I’m one of a few Republicans on that with her. So there’s a number of bipartisan immigration efforts going along. I think they’re viable if we get leadership. Right now, we have border chaos. You know, down at the border is complete chaos. And our current president’s been sending his vice president down there to deal with it, look at it. She has lunch about 80 miles from the border and comes home.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> You’re talking about the Texas border?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Texas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you think the California border is a mess?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Yeah, the whole the whole border is a mess. And we’re not doing anything about it. There’s been no legislation change. Nothing’s been legislated. We simply have an executive, you know, President Biden who doesn’t want to deal with the problem down there for whatever reason, and it’s making it a huge mess.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So what do you see as the roadblocks? I mean, let’s take specifically you’ve been working on a bill around migrant farm workers. That’s something supported by Democrats and Republicans in California. What’s holding that back? I mean, that’s passed the House before. What’s the roadblock there?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, the biggest roadblock to anything happening in immigration the last 20, 30 years, really since 1986, when Reagan did the big amnesty program…that bill had border security in it. That 86 immigration bill had border security in it. So until we pass border security and get it implemented, there’s been a lot of reluctance towards anything else. Now, if we want to do it step wise and say we will secure the border, then we will vote now also to solve these problems. That would be great.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But that seems, I mean it’s been ten years since the last big compromise reform on that. It seems like Republican voters have moved to the right, Democratic voters have moved to the left on this issue. You’re still, you still have hope?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> I have a lot of hope. Because I’m looking at, you know, this is a Voting Rights Act district. This is a desert, California 13, that is 60% Hispanic by voter. Right? So this is a Voting Rights Act district. There’s going to be more of these come to play. And Hispanic families are starting to look at the same problems we’re all looking at. They’re not you know, we don’t want to pass laws that are, you know, insulting that would disenfranchise them if implemented, which the border security bill and the E-Verify clause of it would have. But they’re staring at the same issues we’re staring at. And so I want to make sure that that in the Republican Party, we’ve got an enticing message for Hispanic families to look at Republican candidates like myself and say, you know what? Maybe there’s some people in that party that that aren’t with us on everything, but there’s a lot of people in the Democrat Party that are hurting us. You know, we’re not drilling American oil. We’re not getting water on the farms. We have border chaos. We have groups that want to defund the police. So, you know, there’s real decisions to be made. And I want to put up an offering of a moderate Republican agenda that really solves problems for working families and shows them that the American dream is still alive and that we’re fighting for their access to the American dream.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, switching gears a little bit, talking about a couple of other votes you’ve taken. So you were the only Republican that voted against amendments to the defense bill that would have blocked the Department of Defense from paying for abortions and sex reassignment surgeries. Why that vote? Is that about tying those issues to defense authorization or, you know, talk about that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> That was the Hyde Amendment. The major problem I had with that was when I ran, I said I’m a moderate on abortion. All right? A, it’s a state issue. I believe women should have access to first trimester abortion. And I will vote against any effort to federalize abortion law. So that was simply fulfilling a campaign promise. Now, we never get to choose exactly how these things are packaged up, right? You know, sometimes you get a narrow abortion amendment. Sometimes it’s packaged in an appropriations bill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But, you know, women go in the military and they may be stationed wherever the military stations them. It could be a state with very restrictive abortion laws. And it’s a medical service that the military, you know, provides. It should not be a woman’s cost to bear if she has to go to another state to get medical services that are available where she needs them just because she’s in the military. I don’t want women not enlisting because we restrict their access to certain medical services based on what state they’re in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> The state party’s actually considering removing opposition to a federally protected right to abortion from the party platform. What do you make of that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> I really want to keep abortion a state’s issue. Now, I think in California, I will starkly disagree with some of the extreme left end of that with full term and elective late-term. Those things I disagree with. But we’ve argued for years, decades now that abortion is a state’s rights issue, and I think that’s where it belongs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right, just a couple more questions. The first Republican debate is tonight. We’re taping this Wednesday. I’m curious who you’re supporting next year and what you’re looking for in these debates and this just campaign moving forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, I want my party to retake government and I’m looking at the debate without any opinion on the individual players. I’m going to vote Republican. It’s baked in. I’m going to support the Republican candidate for president. But I want that candidate to be whoever can deliver us the biggest win, whoever can appeal to the moderate voters and bring us victory in the White House, also the Senate, also Congress. And so I’m just looking for whoever successfully resonates with the most Americans possible, which probably means a more moderate candidate. But I’m not picking any names. I just, I want to win and I want to get America back to affordability opportunity and the American dream.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Does a Trump nomination make your job more hard next fall?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s a turnout model. It’s lots of moving parts. All I know is I can do my job well. I can vote my district. I can be accessible and engage in my district and hope people know what I’m about. And if that’s not what the people want, then I’ll go make some trees and vines.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Alright, when he’s not voting in Congress he’s running the poinsettia farm. Congressman Duarte, thank you so much for having us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>John Duarte:\u003c/strong> Well, Marisa, Guy thank you for having me, great speaking to you here today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That is going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. We are a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Christopher Beale. I’m Guy Marzorati.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos, we’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11959080/john-duarte-on-immigration-abortion-and-the-gop-primary",
"authors": [
"3239",
"227"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_33087",
"news_22235"
],
"featImg": "news_11959081",
"label": "source_news_11959080"
},
"news_11958502": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11958502",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11958502",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1692321901000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1692321901,
"format": "audio",
"title": "Betty Yee on a Lifetime of Running the Numbers",
"headTitle": "Betty Yee on a Lifetime of Running the Numbers | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Marisa and Scott discuss the latest on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push for a U.S. constitutional amendment on gun safety and Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s family legal battle. Then, former State Controller Betty Yee joins to discuss working at her parents’ laundry business, the desegregation busing debate that sparked her political involvement, working as a budget advisor for Gov. Gray Davis, her vision for California’s fiscal future, and why she’s launching a run for governor in 2026.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey, everyone. From KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer, and today on the Breakdown, California has never had a female governor, but in 2026, at least two high profile women plan to run. One of them is here today with us. She’s an expert in state finances and most recently served as state Controller after a long stint on the state’s tax board.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Betty Yee is here with us in studio. The daughter of Chinese immigrants, she started crunching numbers as a kid at her family business, and she spent years overseeing state finances. Now she wants to be in charge of spending that money. We’re going to chat with Yee shortly about her run for governor and current position as vice chair of the state Democratic Party.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But first, Scott, it’s been, I would say, a little bit of a quiet August — I mean, in California. We’re not even going to talk about Trump and the national news.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Or Maui for that matter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Or Maui, which is horrific.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Sad, super sad. But yeah, politically, it’s been, you know, it’s the dog days of summer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I’m not complaining, honestly, but we got to talk about something.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We’ve got to talk about something. There’s some stuff.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> In his continuing quest to not run for president, but burnish his national credentials, our fair governor has, as you may recall, introduced a constitutional amendment not for the state, but for the U.S. Constitution. This would enshrine gun control into the state constitution. And this week, we saw state lawmakers actually introduce that the first step in a very long —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Very long and somewhat unlikely process. Yeah, it would do three things. It would raise the age to 21 to purchase a gun, it would ban assault weapons, and it would require, you know, mandatory background checks for —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And waiting periods.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah waiting periods. Things that all poll very well certainly in California but really nationwide but which have not you know been able to get any movement on really since the assault weapons ban that Dianne Feinstein kind of muscled through the Senate and through Congress expired. And so there’s a lot of frustration on the part of Newsom and many with the level of gun violence and the inability to really do that much about the supply of guns and guns that kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I think in part, I mean, this is, you know, part of a long story of Democrats pushing back against the NRA and other, you know, gun rights groups. But it also really comes, I think, in part because of U.S. Supreme Court decisions and lower court decisions of recent years that have really undercut not just California, but other blue states like New York’s own laws. I mean, you said it has three parts. There’s actually a fourth part I found interesting, which is it would essentially affirm the rights of cities and states to pass even further gun control, which is something, you know, that the court has really undermined in particular with last year’s Bruen decision. I mean, this was a decision that we’re even seeing lower courts really push back on, because in it, Clarence Thomas wrote that essentially we need to take into account the historical context of any gun law. And it’s like these judges are like, well, how do we know what was sort of normal in the 18th century when we’re talking about…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Well Clarence Thomas has figured it out so I’m sure he could teach them. But no, you know, this is obviously something that is, as you said, it becomes a national story if it passes. And, you know, we’d have to get a lot of other states, 33 total states, to actually call for a convention, a constitutional convention, which has a lot of risks. You know, Newsom thinks that he can focus this in on the gun issue, but there’s a lot of concern, including among people like Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at Berkeley, saying you can’t control it. And once you open that box, you could be dealing with LGBTQ rights, abortion and any number of other hot button issues which, you know, would potentially be on on the docket, you know, if you’re going to start talking about those things.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Marisa Lagos: Absolutely. Well, another story that we continue to follow is the past and future, really, of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. You know, her longtime husband, Dick Blum, passed away about a year or so, a year or two ago. And Scott, you’ve been following there’s now a kind of fight over his estate and the trustees that were put in charge here. Yeah. Tell us why this matters, though, to average people.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott Shafer: Well, it’s just another sad chapter, unfortunately. And, you know, final years of Dianne Feinstein. She’s has such a, you know, storied career. But we’ve seen the cognitive declines, evidence of that. She was very sick. She had shingles. And now we’ve got this dispute between really her, but her daughter, Katherine, her only daughter, and the four daughters of Dick Blum, who, you know, this sometimes happens with blended families if you don’t have clear instructions—\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Or non-blended families, honestly\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> But especially when you have competing interests, you know, within one family. And, you know, Katherine Feinstein and through the attorneys say that the trust has not been properly funding the marital trust. They have not been responding to requests for funding to help pay for Feinstein’s medical bills. One thing that confuses me, I mean, it’s just a big mess, you know. And they’re also alleging, by the way, financial elder abuse. And so but, you know Dianne Feinstein was quite wealthy on her own, you know. So I don’t quite understand entirely, I mean, apart from this, you know, why it is that, you know, she needs, you know, money from that trust to pay for her medical bills. But clearly, there’s a lot at stake because the daughters of Blum want to just kind of drag this out as long as possible, because once Feinstein goes, you know, all of his money goes to them. And I think that’s clearly part of it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think there’s also sort of bringing it back to like her as a public official. Interesting questions this raises. And we may never know the answers about her financial situation and how much that has impacted her ability to, say, travel back and forth between California and D.C.. I think a lot of us when she was having that bout of shingles, were a little confused about why somebody who, quite frankly, is as wealthy or has been as her, wouldn’t just charter their own jet. Why is she flying commercial? Why is the stairs in her condo in D.C. an issue? And maybe this answer some of those questions that maybe there isn’t as many resources available to her as we all assume.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right. And some of those resources were available when Dick Blum was alive. He had a plane, which she presumably used. The other thing is, you know, her daughter, Katherine Feinstein, former judge who’s now retired, has been given durable power of attorney over her legal and financial issues. And, you know, it does raise a question of just how able is she to do her job as senator if she needs to have someone step in for her on these issues. That, you know, in and of itself does not say she can’t be the senator and do a job. But we’ve seen, you know, in a number of different ways her decline and it’s just sad because it’s I’m sure it’s not what she would have hoped for for her final years in office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I think you and I have also, you know, talked to a lot of people who are close to the senator and have been historically and know that I think there’s been some disagreement between herself and her daughter about whether she should continue her job in D.C.. That may also explain why Katherine Feinstein has not been as visible by her mom’s side as other folks, including Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, who she I think is kind of another daughter to the senator who and has been really assisting her.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> A lot of people have tried to get her to not run, you know, back in 2018 and then to even to step step aside early. But she just really refused to do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, we do wish her the best and we will be watching this case. We’re going to take a short break. When we come back, we’ll be joined by former state Controlle and 2026 gubernatorial hopeful Betty Yee. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown, Marisa Lagos here with Scott Shafer. Today, we are excited to welcome Betty Yee. She has served on the state Board of Equalization, as state Controller and is now vice chair of the state Democratic Party and a candidate for governor in 2026. Betty Yee, welcome to Political Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Thank you. Good to be with you both.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Great to have you. So we want to start at the beginning, as we often do. I know you were raised in San Francisco on the west side and your parents had a business there. Tell us about them and your family. I think you’re one of four siblings?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Six. There are six of us. Yes, I have five siblings. I am the second oldest of six children born to Chinese immigrants. My father came to the United States when he was 14 years old, essentially kicked out by his family in China, southern southeastern part of China, in a prearranged marriage to my mother and was urged to go find a better life that he could have to provide for his future bride and family.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> How did they end up in San Francisco?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> So my father came over. He was sponsored. My then godfather was already here in San Francisco, so he essentially sponsored my father to come to San Francisco. Shortly after his arrival, he apprentice in the laundry business in San Francisco, Chinatown, and did that for quite a while. But his path to citizenship was naturalization after his service in World War Two and the United States Army, a very common path for immigrants during that time. And so eventually he opened up his own laundry dry cleaning business, brought my mother here the year before I was born. And so I do have four sisters and one brother.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Wow. And so this was a laundromat on the west side. And I know you helped them. I think all of you guys did. But it sounds like your affinity for numbers came early through that that experience.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Well, you know, the best employees of a family business are the kids, right? And so I think each of us had a had a role. I was particularly facile with numbers. And so my father, I remember of the end of every week, we’d figure out, you know, what our bills were. He’d hand me all the receipts of the week in a cigar box, and I had to kind of figure out how much money we had. But I also began to negotiate with vendors when I was at a young age, probably about seven or eight years old, how to get a good price on supplies that we needed. And the banking, at the end of the year, another cigar box approached me with tax forms and they were Board of Equalization forms, I had no idea what they were. Follow the instructions, file them and who knew decades later, I’d become a member of the board hearing tax appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And hopefully not dealing with cigar boxes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> No\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You had receipts at that point. But you got into politics in a way, when you were quite young, 13 years old. Yes. And there was an issue in your neighborhood about busing. Your younger sister was going to be bused under a policy that was being proposed. And you stood up at the school district hearing to advocate against bussing. Tell us how you got to that microphone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. I was 13 years old at the time, and as I always recall the story, I’m happy I’m sitting down because I remember the moment I was so nervous. I had never spoken publicly before. But the four Chinese-American families, who all were small business owners in the neighborhood, came to my father and said, ‘We would like your daughter to attend the town hall meeting of the school board,’ which was at the elementary school two blocks away, walking distance from my family’s business, and to essentially make a statement about the bussing program, which essentially says, we are small business owners, our children are able to walk to school today. If anything should happen to them, if they’re bused across the city, we would have to shut down our business. We’d lose a day of livelihood. It would take us well over 2 hours to be on public transportation, to pick up our children and bring them home. And none of us drive. And so we don’t oppose the goals of the busing program. But could we use that money just to improve the quality of all of the schools in San Francisco? And so I made that statement. I got up, made that statement and went back to my seat in the auditorium. And of course, we know that the busing program lasted that the better part of the next three decades. But everything was fine. Nothing happened to my sister and my siblings after her. But it was a moment that just stayed with me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well this was over desegregation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Yes, exactly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, the idea was to make schools more equitable and more diverse. And this is an issue that continues, this debate. I’m curious, like as a staunch member of the Democratic Party, do you see the issue any differently now than you did as a kid at 13?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> You know, it’s interesting. I’m a product of San Francisco public schools. I went to Lowell high school, and I always thought, even as I was growing up and to this day, why were we never just trying to create more Lowell high schools, you know, just throughout the city? You know, we’ve got this crazy competitive process, you know, for everyone to get into the one of the top college prep schools. But yet, you know, we could have at the same time just created more of those to have more opportunities for students. You know, I would say, you know, the bssing program at that time was about a family hardship. I personally support busing programs. I think the earlier we can have young people just be able to understand, you know, the diversity of, you know, our society and to be able to just learn and play and grow with them is a beautiful thing. And I think probably would deepen just so much of the understanding across communities that is so lacking today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I’m curious, you know, sometimes when you have these big cultural issues come to the fore, I’m thinking about same sex marriage, you know, And the opponents said, you know, if we let gay couples marry, the sky is going to fall, is going to ruin this, that and the other thing, and lo and behold, it didn’t. Right. And I’m wondering, so did the things that you said when you stood up that day come to pass in terms of your family? Did they have to close the business? Or was that maybe a little easier, turned out to be a little easier than you thought?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> It turned out to be easier. I mean, I think a lot of it was just the unknown. And really, when you have the convenience of an elementary school two blocks away, walking distance. I mean, my younger sister, I remember, actually got lost walking home from school one day. And so what could happen possibly when she’s across the city?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And so did she go to Visitation Valley ultimately?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> She did, she did, yes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Interesting. So you I mean, you say that that was kind of a political awakening for you. You go on to U.C. Berkeley for undergrad, then Golden Gate University. But I know your college student experience was kind of interrupted in a way when your father became ill. Talk about that. And like, how what did that change? It must have been a very different experience for you than a lot of your peers at that time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Definitely. And even when I was going to Berkeley, I commuted every day. I worked to essentially put myself through school. And you know what was really unfortunate, my father became ill with kidney failure when I was a junior at Cal, and I had to move back home. So each of us, the siblings, took on various responsibilities. A couple of my sisters kept the business going with my mother. I was responsible for taking him to dialysis three times a week at UCSF, and we all coordinated his therapies. But he ended up living for another five years before he passed away, but fairly young in his early sixties. And so this created a situation where my mother decided to continue the business and eventually shut it down. I know one of my sisters wanted to take it over but she just was adamant, you know, ‘My father and I did not sacrifice to have you all be able to get to college and for you to run to run a laundry and dry cleaning business after.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Very immigrant mom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Right, exactly. But what changed about all of that was just really having to navigate so many things for my father’s health care. Understanding, you know, all of the health benefits, Social Security, disability, looking at how to be an advocate in terms of just being sure that his care was the best that he could get. And also understanding that, you know, in terms of just keeping the business going, we came to a point of where, you know, people weren’t like really coming to dry cleaners a lot anymore. And so really seeing kind of the nature of the business declining over time as well. And he was known, by the way, as finishing men’s shirts. So when he wasn’t there to finish men’s shirts anymore, I think that, you know, there was something that just kind of went by the wayside without his talent still in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marissa Vargas. We’re talking with Betty Yee, former state Controller, who is now working with the Cal Democratic Party, running for governor in 2026. You know, you’re talking about your dad’s health problems and one of your early jobs was in public health in Santa Cruz County, and you got involved with HIV AIDS. How did you make that pivot? [\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Sure. After graduate school at Golden Gate University, I really wanted to be in a smaller community to look and see whether I could have more impact. And I was very attracted to women’s health issues. And Santa Cruz County, particularly Santa Cruz city, had a very strong women’s health collective. So I moved down there, did a lot of work with them, and the women’s committee was quite integrated, to where we had dealt with issues of fiscal health, certainly public health, domestic violence, mental health, all of that was just one really integrated community of service providers. One of the members of the Board of Supervisors always selected his member of the County Public Health Commission from the women’s health community. So I was selected by then supervisor Gary Patton to sit on the Public Health Commission. I believe we were the first county to write an anti-smoking ordinance for the unincorporated areas of the county, this was back in the mid-1980s.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And also when the HIV AIDS epidemic broke, we really were at a loss about what to do. We didn’t know anything about treatment at the time, but certainly wanted to get information out to as many communities as possible. And I was tasked to go to Sacramento and bring home some public health dollars for the county for HIV AIDS purposes. I went to Sacramento as a Senate fellow, and did my fellowship with the Senate Health and Human Services Committee and was appalled at what I saw in terms of very, actually no women and very few, I could count on less than one hand, staff of from our diverse communities who are advising our legislators about funding for for health issues. And so I decided I wanted to stay after my fellowship and change that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And you never left, Kind of. I know you lived in the Bay Area. But I do wonder I mean, you talk about the lack of diversity there. I mean, that’s even more so, I would imagine, in the finance sort of sector of public policy. So you end up working for both the legislature on fiscal policy and then Governor Gray Davis. I mean, obviously, that played to your strengths. But were you also attracted by the fact that you could kind of be a trailblazer in those places?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> I would say yes to some extent, but I also wanted to change the landscape. So I’m happy to say today it looks very, very different. I think Californians would be pleased to hear that their committees are well-represented, not just in their elected officials, but certainly among the staff who are advising our electeds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You did work for Governor Gray Davis, who, of course, was recalled, replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger. He had been state comptroller before that and, you know, before he was lieutenant governor. Did he advise you? Did you ask him about running for state Controller? What were you going to say?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I was going to say, did he take your advice at all? But that’s a whole other question. Start with Scott’s question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Well, first of all, let me say I have a very deep fondness for for Governor Davis, who I believe when history looks back at his tenure as governor, we’ll see that we did some really wonderful things for the state of California. You know, for Governor Davis. I did Secret Service in terms of Controller. You know, my discipline has been in finance. And so he was very encouraging. Certainly thought being state Controller was one of the best statewide offices because you really had the ability to elevate the public’s trust and confidence in their government. You know, this is a fiscal watchdog, financial watchdog position. So to the extent that you do that job well and give the public a sense that somebody is, you know, watching over our finances and our fiscal house, that just has, you know, a really good connection with what the public generally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, on the other hand, I kind of allude to this, but, you know, he was recalled, I think, largely because of the energy crisis. But I think in hindsight, there’s a lot of criticisms of the way he oversaw the budget. There’s a sense that he over promised to unions. You know, Schwarzenegger inherited a really dismal budget deficit. Was he listening to you? Like what? What did he do differently than what you were advising?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> You know, I think it’s always, you know, the devil’s in the details with respect to how budgets put together. Look, there was a lot of legislative pressure. Prior to Governor Davis, we had, you know, governor, Pete Wilson. So a lot of pent up frustration in terms of what some of the constituencies were not able to get during those years with Governor Wilson in office. And so I think Governor Davis, you know, did the best he could relative to negotiations. As his budget director and adviser, I always say fiscal prudence is never an unpopular thing. So, you know, always reminding him that, you know, this is a good place to be. But at the end of the day, to get a budget, these were protracted budgets. You remember during those years where you didn’t have a budget —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well and you needed a two-thirds, it was a much different process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well and full disclosure, I was working for him when he was the state Controller at that time and they were issuing IOUs\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> That’s right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And he and Wilson did not get along. And I think, you know, now that I can say this now, he was, I think, using that to elevate himself, that conflict. And I’m wondering, you know, what did you learn observing that in terms of how different constitutional officers get together or should get along or not?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> I wish there could be more collaboration, frankly. We are independently elected constitutional offices, but I certainly view the role of the Controller as being very pivotal to just the entire operation of the state. We’re a high production office. We have the ability to look out at just any kind of economic risks that could be hitting California. Certainly from a cash flow perspective, when we might run into trouble. And look, I was proactive, always advised, you know, the executive branch, the governor’s office, whenever we saw anything. But I think there could have been more collaboration because, you know, we are the ones that really understand how to, you know, just push money out the door. And certainly, you know, when the pandemic hit, I think there was a bit more collaboration, but it could have been much deeper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, you mentioned pushing money out the door. As I said at the top, you’re running for governor. You want to pick how to spend that money. When you ran for Controller, you talked a lot about tax reform and the idea that we do need to at least tweak our system so that it’s less reliant on the top 1%. Of course, that means the other 99% probably would pay more. Talk about your vision for the state. If you do become governor, what you know, what would you like to see done? Understanding you won’t be empress but you could try.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> The tax system is I mean, we have it, we’re living with it, I will say the one reform that has really helped us tremendously is the voter approval of a rainy day fund. Frankly, if we didn’t have that at the beginning of the pandemic, we probably would have had to do some pretty expensive borrowing. So we’re very grateful for the voters wisdom in that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But also, when you look at other states in terms of, you know, just fiscal stability, I think the mix of taxes is really important. You know, obviously we have Prop 13, which capped the local property tax. But the mix from the perspective that, you know, when you have such reliance on upper income earners who and there’s been a lot of stories about many of them leaving California. But we’re also still getting new people coming into California. So from a tax perspective, close to being a wash. But I think the more that we see affordability issues here, we are going to see more Californians leaving. So sales tax, we’ve talked a lot about how being one of the few large states that does not tax services and that is real money. I mean, that is money that could actually come in on a pretty regular basis. Example of that, you go take your car in for repair. You pay for tax on the parts, but not on the service. And that could generate, you know, quite quite a quite a chunk of change,\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Although a lot of the states, I would guess, that have that tax don’t have other taxes, like some states don’t have income tax for example. So I mean you’re talking about adding yet more tax on a, you know, somewhat high tax burden states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Well but it’s also about the what you do on the spending side too. But relative to the just kind of the tax sources and the mix of taxes I think that it actually could result in hopefully a decrease in some tax rates on the income tax side so that we can have the sales tax really be more reflective of, you know, what’s really happening on the economy. You know, on the spending side, I would say, look, I was comptroller, did audits, you know, uncovered a lot over my eight years, about $7.3 billion of public funds that were directed to unallowed uses. And there’s more there had we had more time and resources to uncover that there was always waste. It’s not fraud. It’s just that’s part of the system. And so we have to root that out. And we also know that from a tax perspective that there are those who are going to continue to not be compliant. And so to the extent that we can add, you know, more resources to have to work with taxpayers to become compliant, that is to the good for the long term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, you’re running in 2026 and before then we have just this little election next year. I’m curious, you know, the California Democratic Party is seen as to the left of even some Democrats in California. How do you see kind of approaching that? Do you think there needs to be any change in the way that the party operates? And and how are you thinking about heading into this election year?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you know, I think there has been a change in how the party operates. So we have invested in what we call year round organizing. So we are engaging Democrats, the 10 million plus Democrats in the state, year round now instead of just months ahead of an election. And the reason we do that is because we actually get informed by the voters and Democrats about what’s top of mind for them. That helps us then begin to, you know, message how we are going to have our endorsed candidates pay attention to these issues. And and so that has been really, I think, a game changer that this organizing isn’t around election, it’s around being able to really live the values of being Democrats in California. And so whether it’s health care, whether it’s housing affordability, you know, whatever the issue is, we are hearing pretty common themes across all of California. But in certain areas of California, even more dire issues around water and, you know, other top of mind issues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We noted at the top that California’s never had a female governor like so many states have had. There’s a Eleni Kounalakis the lieutenant governor, also running. There’ll be plenty of time to debate the differences. But why do you think there hasn’t been a woman governor in California? And what difference would it make to have one?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> As with any office, including governor, you know, women, and this really speaks to, you know, how women professionally have not had the deep networks. You know, these are races that cost tens of millions of dollars. And so to have the deep networks, to be able to fundraise, to be viable as a candidate statewide, I think has been definitely a barrier. But I also think that has changed. We are now running with a sense of maturity in terms of, you know, those networks being much more robust. I also think that given the issues of the day, particularly as it relates to reproductive rights and just so many of these critical social issues, you know, the women’s voice is really important. And so and when you look at the electorate, over half are women. And so I think it’s high time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right. We are going to leave it there. That is former comptroller and 2026 governor candidate. Betty Yee thanks for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That will do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. We are a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Christopher Beale, Guy Marzorati is our producer. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos. We’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 6033,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 82
},
"modified": 1700874539,
"excerpt": "Plus, the latest on Gov. Gavin Newsom's push for a U.S. constitutional amendment on gun safety.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Plus, the latest on Gov. Gavin Newsom's push for a U.S. constitutional amendment on gun safety.",
"title": "Betty Yee on a Lifetime of Running the Numbers | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Betty Yee on a Lifetime of Running the Numbers",
"datePublished": "2023-08-17T18:25:01-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:08:59-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "betty-yee-on-a-lifetime-of-running-the-numbers",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC2514204200.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11958502/betty-yee-on-a-lifetime-of-running-the-numbers",
"audioDuration": 1830000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Marisa and Scott discuss the latest on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push for a U.S. constitutional amendment on gun safety and Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s family legal battle. Then, former State Controller Betty Yee joins to discuss working at her parents’ laundry business, the desegregation busing debate that sparked her political involvement, working as a budget advisor for Gov. Gray Davis, her vision for California’s fiscal future, and why she’s launching a run for governor in 2026.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Hey, everyone. From KQED Public Radio, this is Political Breakdown. I’m Marisa Lagos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer, and today on the Breakdown, California has never had a female governor, but in 2026, at least two high profile women plan to run. One of them is here today with us. She’s an expert in state finances and most recently served as state Controller after a long stint on the state’s tax board.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Betty Yee is here with us in studio. The daughter of Chinese immigrants, she started crunching numbers as a kid at her family business, and she spent years overseeing state finances. Now she wants to be in charge of spending that money. We’re going to chat with Yee shortly about her run for governor and current position as vice chair of the state Democratic Party.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But first, Scott, it’s been, I would say, a little bit of a quiet August — I mean, in California. We’re not even going to talk about Trump and the national news.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Or Maui for that matter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Or Maui, which is horrific.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Sad, super sad. But yeah, politically, it’s been, you know, it’s the dog days of summer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I’m not complaining, honestly, but we got to talk about something.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We’ve got to talk about something. There’s some stuff.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> In his continuing quest to not run for president, but burnish his national credentials, our fair governor has, as you may recall, introduced a constitutional amendment not for the state, but for the U.S. Constitution. This would enshrine gun control into the state constitution. And this week, we saw state lawmakers actually introduce that the first step in a very long —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Very long and somewhat unlikely process. Yeah, it would do three things. It would raise the age to 21 to purchase a gun, it would ban assault weapons, and it would require, you know, mandatory background checks for —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And waiting periods.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah waiting periods. Things that all poll very well certainly in California but really nationwide but which have not you know been able to get any movement on really since the assault weapons ban that Dianne Feinstein kind of muscled through the Senate and through Congress expired. And so there’s a lot of frustration on the part of Newsom and many with the level of gun violence and the inability to really do that much about the supply of guns and guns that kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I think in part, I mean, this is, you know, part of a long story of Democrats pushing back against the NRA and other, you know, gun rights groups. But it also really comes, I think, in part because of U.S. Supreme Court decisions and lower court decisions of recent years that have really undercut not just California, but other blue states like New York’s own laws. I mean, you said it has three parts. There’s actually a fourth part I found interesting, which is it would essentially affirm the rights of cities and states to pass even further gun control, which is something, you know, that the court has really undermined in particular with last year’s Bruen decision. I mean, this was a decision that we’re even seeing lower courts really push back on, because in it, Clarence Thomas wrote that essentially we need to take into account the historical context of any gun law. And it’s like these judges are like, well, how do we know what was sort of normal in the 18th century when we’re talking about…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Well Clarence Thomas has figured it out so I’m sure he could teach them. But no, you know, this is obviously something that is, as you said, it becomes a national story if it passes. And, you know, we’d have to get a lot of other states, 33 total states, to actually call for a convention, a constitutional convention, which has a lot of risks. You know, Newsom thinks that he can focus this in on the gun issue, but there’s a lot of concern, including among people like Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at Berkeley, saying you can’t control it. And once you open that box, you could be dealing with LGBTQ rights, abortion and any number of other hot button issues which, you know, would potentially be on on the docket, you know, if you’re going to start talking about those things.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Marisa Lagos: Absolutely. Well, another story that we continue to follow is the past and future, really, of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. You know, her longtime husband, Dick Blum, passed away about a year or so, a year or two ago. And Scott, you’ve been following there’s now a kind of fight over his estate and the trustees that were put in charge here. Yeah. Tell us why this matters, though, to average people.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott Shafer: Well, it’s just another sad chapter, unfortunately. And, you know, final years of Dianne Feinstein. She’s has such a, you know, storied career. But we’ve seen the cognitive declines, evidence of that. She was very sick. She had shingles. And now we’ve got this dispute between really her, but her daughter, Katherine, her only daughter, and the four daughters of Dick Blum, who, you know, this sometimes happens with blended families if you don’t have clear instructions—\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Or non-blended families, honestly\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> But especially when you have competing interests, you know, within one family. And, you know, Katherine Feinstein and through the attorneys say that the trust has not been properly funding the marital trust. They have not been responding to requests for funding to help pay for Feinstein’s medical bills. One thing that confuses me, I mean, it’s just a big mess, you know. And they’re also alleging, by the way, financial elder abuse. And so but, you know Dianne Feinstein was quite wealthy on her own, you know. So I don’t quite understand entirely, I mean, apart from this, you know, why it is that, you know, she needs, you know, money from that trust to pay for her medical bills. But clearly, there’s a lot at stake because the daughters of Blum want to just kind of drag this out as long as possible, because once Feinstein goes, you know, all of his money goes to them. And I think that’s clearly part of it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think there’s also sort of bringing it back to like her as a public official. Interesting questions this raises. And we may never know the answers about her financial situation and how much that has impacted her ability to, say, travel back and forth between California and D.C.. I think a lot of us when she was having that bout of shingles, were a little confused about why somebody who, quite frankly, is as wealthy or has been as her, wouldn’t just charter their own jet. Why is she flying commercial? Why is the stairs in her condo in D.C. an issue? And maybe this answer some of those questions that maybe there isn’t as many resources available to her as we all assume.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right. And some of those resources were available when Dick Blum was alive. He had a plane, which she presumably used. The other thing is, you know, her daughter, Katherine Feinstein, former judge who’s now retired, has been given durable power of attorney over her legal and financial issues. And, you know, it does raise a question of just how able is she to do her job as senator if she needs to have someone step in for her on these issues. That, you know, in and of itself does not say she can’t be the senator and do a job. But we’ve seen, you know, in a number of different ways her decline and it’s just sad because it’s I’m sure it’s not what she would have hoped for for her final years in office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I think you and I have also, you know, talked to a lot of people who are close to the senator and have been historically and know that I think there’s been some disagreement between herself and her daughter about whether she should continue her job in D.C.. That may also explain why Katherine Feinstein has not been as visible by her mom’s side as other folks, including Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, who she I think is kind of another daughter to the senator who and has been really assisting her.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> A lot of people have tried to get her to not run, you know, back in 2018 and then to even to step step aside early. But she just really refused to do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, we do wish her the best and we will be watching this case. We’re going to take a short break. When we come back, we’ll be joined by former state Controlle and 2026 gubernatorial hopeful Betty Yee. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown, Marisa Lagos here with Scott Shafer. Today, we are excited to welcome Betty Yee. She has served on the state Board of Equalization, as state Controller and is now vice chair of the state Democratic Party and a candidate for governor in 2026. Betty Yee, welcome to Political Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Thank you. Good to be with you both.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Great to have you. So we want to start at the beginning, as we often do. I know you were raised in San Francisco on the west side and your parents had a business there. Tell us about them and your family. I think you’re one of four siblings?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Six. There are six of us. Yes, I have five siblings. I am the second oldest of six children born to Chinese immigrants. My father came to the United States when he was 14 years old, essentially kicked out by his family in China, southern southeastern part of China, in a prearranged marriage to my mother and was urged to go find a better life that he could have to provide for his future bride and family.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> How did they end up in San Francisco?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> So my father came over. He was sponsored. My then godfather was already here in San Francisco, so he essentially sponsored my father to come to San Francisco. Shortly after his arrival, he apprentice in the laundry business in San Francisco, Chinatown, and did that for quite a while. But his path to citizenship was naturalization after his service in World War Two and the United States Army, a very common path for immigrants during that time. And so eventually he opened up his own laundry dry cleaning business, brought my mother here the year before I was born. And so I do have four sisters and one brother.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Wow. And so this was a laundromat on the west side. And I know you helped them. I think all of you guys did. But it sounds like your affinity for numbers came early through that that experience.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Well, you know, the best employees of a family business are the kids, right? And so I think each of us had a had a role. I was particularly facile with numbers. And so my father, I remember of the end of every week, we’d figure out, you know, what our bills were. He’d hand me all the receipts of the week in a cigar box, and I had to kind of figure out how much money we had. But I also began to negotiate with vendors when I was at a young age, probably about seven or eight years old, how to get a good price on supplies that we needed. And the banking, at the end of the year, another cigar box approached me with tax forms and they were Board of Equalization forms, I had no idea what they were. Follow the instructions, file them and who knew decades later, I’d become a member of the board hearing tax appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And hopefully not dealing with cigar boxes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> No\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You had receipts at that point. But you got into politics in a way, when you were quite young, 13 years old. Yes. And there was an issue in your neighborhood about busing. Your younger sister was going to be bused under a policy that was being proposed. And you stood up at the school district hearing to advocate against bussing. Tell us how you got to that microphone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. I was 13 years old at the time, and as I always recall the story, I’m happy I’m sitting down because I remember the moment I was so nervous. I had never spoken publicly before. But the four Chinese-American families, who all were small business owners in the neighborhood, came to my father and said, ‘We would like your daughter to attend the town hall meeting of the school board,’ which was at the elementary school two blocks away, walking distance from my family’s business, and to essentially make a statement about the bussing program, which essentially says, we are small business owners, our children are able to walk to school today. If anything should happen to them, if they’re bused across the city, we would have to shut down our business. We’d lose a day of livelihood. It would take us well over 2 hours to be on public transportation, to pick up our children and bring them home. And none of us drive. And so we don’t oppose the goals of the busing program. But could we use that money just to improve the quality of all of the schools in San Francisco? And so I made that statement. I got up, made that statement and went back to my seat in the auditorium. And of course, we know that the busing program lasted that the better part of the next three decades. But everything was fine. Nothing happened to my sister and my siblings after her. But it was a moment that just stayed with me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well this was over desegregation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Yes, exactly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, the idea was to make schools more equitable and more diverse. And this is an issue that continues, this debate. I’m curious, like as a staunch member of the Democratic Party, do you see the issue any differently now than you did as a kid at 13?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> You know, it’s interesting. I’m a product of San Francisco public schools. I went to Lowell high school, and I always thought, even as I was growing up and to this day, why were we never just trying to create more Lowell high schools, you know, just throughout the city? You know, we’ve got this crazy competitive process, you know, for everyone to get into the one of the top college prep schools. But yet, you know, we could have at the same time just created more of those to have more opportunities for students. You know, I would say, you know, the bssing program at that time was about a family hardship. I personally support busing programs. I think the earlier we can have young people just be able to understand, you know, the diversity of, you know, our society and to be able to just learn and play and grow with them is a beautiful thing. And I think probably would deepen just so much of the understanding across communities that is so lacking today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I’m curious, you know, sometimes when you have these big cultural issues come to the fore, I’m thinking about same sex marriage, you know, And the opponents said, you know, if we let gay couples marry, the sky is going to fall, is going to ruin this, that and the other thing, and lo and behold, it didn’t. Right. And I’m wondering, so did the things that you said when you stood up that day come to pass in terms of your family? Did they have to close the business? Or was that maybe a little easier, turned out to be a little easier than you thought?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> It turned out to be easier. I mean, I think a lot of it was just the unknown. And really, when you have the convenience of an elementary school two blocks away, walking distance. I mean, my younger sister, I remember, actually got lost walking home from school one day. And so what could happen possibly when she’s across the city?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And so did she go to Visitation Valley ultimately?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> She did, she did, yes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Interesting. So you I mean, you say that that was kind of a political awakening for you. You go on to U.C. Berkeley for undergrad, then Golden Gate University. But I know your college student experience was kind of interrupted in a way when your father became ill. Talk about that. And like, how what did that change? It must have been a very different experience for you than a lot of your peers at that time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Definitely. And even when I was going to Berkeley, I commuted every day. I worked to essentially put myself through school. And you know what was really unfortunate, my father became ill with kidney failure when I was a junior at Cal, and I had to move back home. So each of us, the siblings, took on various responsibilities. A couple of my sisters kept the business going with my mother. I was responsible for taking him to dialysis three times a week at UCSF, and we all coordinated his therapies. But he ended up living for another five years before he passed away, but fairly young in his early sixties. And so this created a situation where my mother decided to continue the business and eventually shut it down. I know one of my sisters wanted to take it over but she just was adamant, you know, ‘My father and I did not sacrifice to have you all be able to get to college and for you to run to run a laundry and dry cleaning business after.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Very immigrant mom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Right, exactly. But what changed about all of that was just really having to navigate so many things for my father’s health care. Understanding, you know, all of the health benefits, Social Security, disability, looking at how to be an advocate in terms of just being sure that his care was the best that he could get. And also understanding that, you know, in terms of just keeping the business going, we came to a point of where, you know, people weren’t like really coming to dry cleaners a lot anymore. And so really seeing kind of the nature of the business declining over time as well. And he was known, by the way, as finishing men’s shirts. So when he wasn’t there to finish men’s shirts anymore, I think that, you know, there was something that just kind of went by the wayside without his talent still in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marissa Vargas. We’re talking with Betty Yee, former state Controller, who is now working with the Cal Democratic Party, running for governor in 2026. You know, you’re talking about your dad’s health problems and one of your early jobs was in public health in Santa Cruz County, and you got involved with HIV AIDS. How did you make that pivot? [\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Sure. After graduate school at Golden Gate University, I really wanted to be in a smaller community to look and see whether I could have more impact. And I was very attracted to women’s health issues. And Santa Cruz County, particularly Santa Cruz city, had a very strong women’s health collective. So I moved down there, did a lot of work with them, and the women’s committee was quite integrated, to where we had dealt with issues of fiscal health, certainly public health, domestic violence, mental health, all of that was just one really integrated community of service providers. One of the members of the Board of Supervisors always selected his member of the County Public Health Commission from the women’s health community. So I was selected by then supervisor Gary Patton to sit on the Public Health Commission. I believe we were the first county to write an anti-smoking ordinance for the unincorporated areas of the county, this was back in the mid-1980s.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And also when the HIV AIDS epidemic broke, we really were at a loss about what to do. We didn’t know anything about treatment at the time, but certainly wanted to get information out to as many communities as possible. And I was tasked to go to Sacramento and bring home some public health dollars for the county for HIV AIDS purposes. I went to Sacramento as a Senate fellow, and did my fellowship with the Senate Health and Human Services Committee and was appalled at what I saw in terms of very, actually no women and very few, I could count on less than one hand, staff of from our diverse communities who are advising our legislators about funding for for health issues. And so I decided I wanted to stay after my fellowship and change that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And you never left, Kind of. I know you lived in the Bay Area. But I do wonder I mean, you talk about the lack of diversity there. I mean, that’s even more so, I would imagine, in the finance sort of sector of public policy. So you end up working for both the legislature on fiscal policy and then Governor Gray Davis. I mean, obviously, that played to your strengths. But were you also attracted by the fact that you could kind of be a trailblazer in those places?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> I would say yes to some extent, but I also wanted to change the landscape. So I’m happy to say today it looks very, very different. I think Californians would be pleased to hear that their committees are well-represented, not just in their elected officials, but certainly among the staff who are advising our electeds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You did work for Governor Gray Davis, who, of course, was recalled, replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger. He had been state comptroller before that and, you know, before he was lieutenant governor. Did he advise you? Did you ask him about running for state Controller? What were you going to say?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I was going to say, did he take your advice at all? But that’s a whole other question. Start with Scott’s question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Well, first of all, let me say I have a very deep fondness for for Governor Davis, who I believe when history looks back at his tenure as governor, we’ll see that we did some really wonderful things for the state of California. You know, for Governor Davis. I did Secret Service in terms of Controller. You know, my discipline has been in finance. And so he was very encouraging. Certainly thought being state Controller was one of the best statewide offices because you really had the ability to elevate the public’s trust and confidence in their government. You know, this is a fiscal watchdog, financial watchdog position. So to the extent that you do that job well and give the public a sense that somebody is, you know, watching over our finances and our fiscal house, that just has, you know, a really good connection with what the public generally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, on the other hand, I kind of allude to this, but, you know, he was recalled, I think, largely because of the energy crisis. But I think in hindsight, there’s a lot of criticisms of the way he oversaw the budget. There’s a sense that he over promised to unions. You know, Schwarzenegger inherited a really dismal budget deficit. Was he listening to you? Like what? What did he do differently than what you were advising?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> You know, I think it’s always, you know, the devil’s in the details with respect to how budgets put together. Look, there was a lot of legislative pressure. Prior to Governor Davis, we had, you know, governor, Pete Wilson. So a lot of pent up frustration in terms of what some of the constituencies were not able to get during those years with Governor Wilson in office. And so I think Governor Davis, you know, did the best he could relative to negotiations. As his budget director and adviser, I always say fiscal prudence is never an unpopular thing. So, you know, always reminding him that, you know, this is a good place to be. But at the end of the day, to get a budget, these were protracted budgets. You remember during those years where you didn’t have a budget —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well and you needed a two-thirds, it was a much different process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well and full disclosure, I was working for him when he was the state Controller at that time and they were issuing IOUs\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> That’s right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And he and Wilson did not get along. And I think, you know, now that I can say this now, he was, I think, using that to elevate himself, that conflict. And I’m wondering, you know, what did you learn observing that in terms of how different constitutional officers get together or should get along or not?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> I wish there could be more collaboration, frankly. We are independently elected constitutional offices, but I certainly view the role of the Controller as being very pivotal to just the entire operation of the state. We’re a high production office. We have the ability to look out at just any kind of economic risks that could be hitting California. Certainly from a cash flow perspective, when we might run into trouble. And look, I was proactive, always advised, you know, the executive branch, the governor’s office, whenever we saw anything. But I think there could have been more collaboration because, you know, we are the ones that really understand how to, you know, just push money out the door. And certainly, you know, when the pandemic hit, I think there was a bit more collaboration, but it could have been much deeper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, you mentioned pushing money out the door. As I said at the top, you’re running for governor. You want to pick how to spend that money. When you ran for Controller, you talked a lot about tax reform and the idea that we do need to at least tweak our system so that it’s less reliant on the top 1%. Of course, that means the other 99% probably would pay more. Talk about your vision for the state. If you do become governor, what you know, what would you like to see done? Understanding you won’t be empress but you could try.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> The tax system is I mean, we have it, we’re living with it, I will say the one reform that has really helped us tremendously is the voter approval of a rainy day fund. Frankly, if we didn’t have that at the beginning of the pandemic, we probably would have had to do some pretty expensive borrowing. So we’re very grateful for the voters wisdom in that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But also, when you look at other states in terms of, you know, just fiscal stability, I think the mix of taxes is really important. You know, obviously we have Prop 13, which capped the local property tax. But the mix from the perspective that, you know, when you have such reliance on upper income earners who and there’s been a lot of stories about many of them leaving California. But we’re also still getting new people coming into California. So from a tax perspective, close to being a wash. But I think the more that we see affordability issues here, we are going to see more Californians leaving. So sales tax, we’ve talked a lot about how being one of the few large states that does not tax services and that is real money. I mean, that is money that could actually come in on a pretty regular basis. Example of that, you go take your car in for repair. You pay for tax on the parts, but not on the service. And that could generate, you know, quite quite a quite a chunk of change,\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Although a lot of the states, I would guess, that have that tax don’t have other taxes, like some states don’t have income tax for example. So I mean you’re talking about adding yet more tax on a, you know, somewhat high tax burden states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Well but it’s also about the what you do on the spending side too. But relative to the just kind of the tax sources and the mix of taxes I think that it actually could result in hopefully a decrease in some tax rates on the income tax side so that we can have the sales tax really be more reflective of, you know, what’s really happening on the economy. You know, on the spending side, I would say, look, I was comptroller, did audits, you know, uncovered a lot over my eight years, about $7.3 billion of public funds that were directed to unallowed uses. And there’s more there had we had more time and resources to uncover that there was always waste. It’s not fraud. It’s just that’s part of the system. And so we have to root that out. And we also know that from a tax perspective that there are those who are going to continue to not be compliant. And so to the extent that we can add, you know, more resources to have to work with taxpayers to become compliant, that is to the good for the long term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Well, you’re running in 2026 and before then we have just this little election next year. I’m curious, you know, the California Democratic Party is seen as to the left of even some Democrats in California. How do you see kind of approaching that? Do you think there needs to be any change in the way that the party operates? And and how are you thinking about heading into this election year?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you know, I think there has been a change in how the party operates. So we have invested in what we call year round organizing. So we are engaging Democrats, the 10 million plus Democrats in the state, year round now instead of just months ahead of an election. And the reason we do that is because we actually get informed by the voters and Democrats about what’s top of mind for them. That helps us then begin to, you know, message how we are going to have our endorsed candidates pay attention to these issues. And and so that has been really, I think, a game changer that this organizing isn’t around election, it’s around being able to really live the values of being Democrats in California. And so whether it’s health care, whether it’s housing affordability, you know, whatever the issue is, we are hearing pretty common themes across all of California. But in certain areas of California, even more dire issues around water and, you know, other top of mind issues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We noted at the top that California’s never had a female governor like so many states have had. There’s a Eleni Kounalakis the lieutenant governor, also running. There’ll be plenty of time to debate the differences. But why do you think there hasn’t been a woman governor in California? And what difference would it make to have one?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> As with any office, including governor, you know, women, and this really speaks to, you know, how women professionally have not had the deep networks. You know, these are races that cost tens of millions of dollars. And so to have the deep networks, to be able to fundraise, to be viable as a candidate statewide, I think has been definitely a barrier. But I also think that has changed. We are now running with a sense of maturity in terms of, you know, those networks being much more robust. I also think that given the issues of the day, particularly as it relates to reproductive rights and just so many of these critical social issues, you know, the women’s voice is really important. And so and when you look at the electorate, over half are women. And so I think it’s high time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> All right. We are going to leave it there. That is former comptroller and 2026 governor candidate. Betty Yee thanks for coming in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Betty Yee:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> That will do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. We are a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Christopher Beale, Guy Marzorati is our producer. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos. We’ll see you next time.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11958502/betty-yee-on-a-lifetime-of-running-the-numbers",
"authors": [
"3239",
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_6390",
"news_22235"
],
"featImg": "news_11958513",
"label": "source_news_11958502"
},
"news_11957927": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11957927",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11957927",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1691717149000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "evan-low-on-barriers-to-democracy-and-californias-travel-ban",
"title": "Evan Low on Barriers to Democracy and California's Travel Ban",
"publishDate": 1691717149,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Evan Low on Barriers to Democracy and California’s Travel Ban | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>City employees hit the picket lines in Los Angeles while government \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11957679/4500-san-jose-city-workers-are-about-to-go-on-strike\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">workers in San José plan to strike next week\u003c/a>. Scott and Guy Marzorati discuss the politics of labor unrest at city halls and a \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11957686/experts-say-political-deserts-still-preventing-california-voters-from-casting-ballots\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">new survey on voter participation\u003c/a> in California. Then, Assemblymember Evan Low joins to discuss barriers to civic participation, his groundbreaking rise in elected office, whether California should sunset its state-sponsored travel ban to states with anti-LGBTQ laws and his effort to remove Proposition 8 from the state constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, everybody. From KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati, in this week for Marisa Lagos. On today’s show, Assemblyman Evan Low. He got the politics bug at an early age and hasn’t slowed down. Today, he represents a slice of Silicon Valley in the state legislature.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> He was the youngest and first openly gay mayor of Campbell and at age 26, the youngest Asian-American mayor ever. We’ll talk to him about his push to have voters formally remove the ban on same sex marriage from the California Constitution and a whole lot more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But first Guy, this is really becoming known as the Hot Labor Summer. A lot of labor unrest. Of course, everyone knows about the SAG-AFTRA strike, the Writers Guild strike down in L.A. But there was another strike, a one day strike in L.A., 11,000 or so city workers. And then you’ve been covering in your neck of the woods, San Jose. What’s going on?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, ‘Hot Labor Summer’ spreads to city hall. We saw in Los Angeles this week, on Tuesday, SEIU representing 7000 city workers holding a one day strike, you know, shutting down local pools, you know, community activities, having a broad impact there. San Jose, two unions representing city workers set to go on strike next Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday into Friday. And that has not been resolved. Both sides are back at mediation today and been told they’ve made some progress, but not enough to completely avert the strike to this point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I do think you’re seeing it’s, you know, part of a trend, as you mentioned, actors, writers, we seeing hotel workers in Southern California as well. This kind of fervor that I think is built up in large part because, look, workers have gone through the last few years of inflation. And when you’re dealing with a collective bargaining agreement, you haven’t had the chance to catch up with wages. Now, that’s all coming to fruition. You know, for folks in city hall, it might not be a great time because a lot of these local governments are now facing budget issues at this time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there’s also a worker shortage. I mean, there’s a it’s a hard time. I know pools in San Francisco. I swim a lot, play water polo. There’s they have a shortage of lifeguards. You know, they’re just having a hard time finding people. So that strengthens the hand, although in the case of San Jose are the contracts up?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah in San Jose, the contracts expired on June 30th. So that is relative, you know, makes more sense. The SEIU one was kind of an outlier in L.A. in the sense that they have an existing agreement. There have been a lot of discussions about kind of side negotiations on different issues that they’ve had to negotiate with the city. And so in that sense, it kind of came off as kind of a show of force, like, look, look at the kind of unity we have among members and the ability that we have to make an impact on city services if we walk off the job for a day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The politics, though, have been very interesting and very different in these two cities. I’ve noticed in Los Angeles you have Mayor Karen Bass, who sits on the committee that’s kind of dealing with bargaining, but she was endorsed by SEIU, running for mayor. And in fact, you heard the local leaders at some of the rallies that were held on Tuesday say, look, this has nothing to do with Karen Bass. We have you have nothing but love for the mayor, even though she has a real impact in leading that committee. On the flip side, Matt Mahan, who, you know, ran with a lot of business support in San Jose and won the mayorship there. He’s just one vote on a you know, along with ten other city council members to to direct the city manager. That’s who’s actually negotiating.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And the labor candidate lost, Cindy Chavez.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And the labor candidate lost and at the public comment on Tuesday. A lot of the comments were directed towards, you know, ‘We need the mayor to step up and increase these wages. We need the mayor to step in and take action.’ And at the very end of public comment, he said, like, look, folks, I’m just one I’m just one vote in this. But it’s kind of the different politics that we’re seeing in the two cities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Exactly. And we’ll find out how that unfolds next week. Also this week, there was a very interesting Berkeley IGS poll. It’s a series of polls that they’re doing kind of looking at the state of democracy in California, how voters are feeling about it, who votes, who doesn’t. And one of the key findings in that first poll released this week, right. Not a huge surprise, but it really brought home this notion that people who vote in California regularly are more likely to be white, college educated, higher income, more likely to be married, own their home. And, you know, when you when they’ve talked to black, Latino, Asian American voters, a lot of them feel they don’t have enough information to cast an informed ballot. And there’s a lot of reasons for that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I was struck, too, by the identification of kind of media deserts or information deserts, which campaigns, you know, they’re in the kind of crunch time of trying to get to a specific result. And they’re really targeting a lot of times towards the end of campaigns, people they know are going to turn out. So who gets left out of that? Maybe voters who haven’t voted in the last election are not likely to come out. And I think that’s where you kind of see that lack of information, pamphlets, mailers, things that regular voters get tired of by October. You know, for for other folks, they’re just not getting that same kind of communication.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there’s like the digital divide. They may not have laptops or access to the Internet language barriers. They may have been involved in the criminal justice system, may be low income is all kinds of things that kind of. Conspire against those folks from voting. And, you know, there were some interesting thoughts about ways to address that democracy dollars, which they’ve tried in Seattle, where they gave a $25 voucher.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And Oakland, didn’t Oakland do that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Oakland passed it, but they haven’t implemented because of the budget. But in Seattle, they’ve tried it. And according to Common Cause up there, it can only be cashed in for contributions to local candidates. And people who use those vouchers were 11 times more likely to vote. So we’ll see maybe some more conversation about that in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, it also brought to mind to me some research that the PPIC had done on election changes in California, voting changes. One of the things that this example reflected was that there’s great support for the kind of expansion of vote by mail, sending everybody a ballot by default, and that at least in the 2020 election, actually closed the gap in turnout between white California voters and then Black and Latino California voters. But at the same time, what accompanied that in a lot of cases was limiting or reducing the number of in-person voting places. And that actually cut in to the gains that were made in closing the divide. So you always hear you can’t put a price on democracy. But in a lot of ways we have made that choice when it comes to limiting in-person voting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And, you know, we’ve lowered the barriers to registering and voting in California with that is only half the battle. You got to get people to actually cast the ballots. All right. We’re going take a short break. And when we come back, we’re going to be joined by Silicon Valley Assembly member Evan Low. You’re listening to Political Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And welcome back to Political Breakdown, I’m Scott Shafer here with Guy Marzorati. We’re happy to have on the show today, live and in-person, Evan Low. He’s broken barriers in his political career: the first openly gay mayor of Campbell down in Silicon Valley and at age 26 or was it 29? I think was 26. The youngest Asian-American mayor anywhere in the U.S. Now, he’s a veteran up in the state Assembly where he’s been there since 2014. Low is a champion for LGBTQ rights and a lot more. Evan Low, welcome to Political Breakdown. How old were you when you became mayor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> I was 26 years old at that ripe age. So, yeah, there are, of course, fresher faces these days, too, and that’s a good thing to see.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Exactly. So we were talking about the elections and some of the barriers to voting. You’re on the elections committee in the Assembly. What are your thoughts about what kind of incentives can we give people to vote?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well, we’ve done quite a bit in the state of California making Election Day a participatory event and trying to remove as many barriers as possible, whereas in other states are increasing barriers to entry. And so we’re going to continue with that. I authored legislation to lower the voting age to 17 and a half, coauthored by now Congressman Kevin Mullin, because both of us prioritize civics, in which in you’re a senior in high school classroom, why not be taught how to vote? And it is relevant to you. And imagine that political candidates and for public office would actually go to high school campuses because now you have an eligible voting pool and that those candidates will be speaking specifically to issues related to young people. And young individuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Voters turned thumbs down on that, didn’t they?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yes we were perhaps a little bit ahead of our times.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Parents are probably like ‘I’m not going to let them vote, they’re irresponsible.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> We lost by about 8% or so. But I think it’s important to help empower the next generation, especially as they are paying their taxes and paying their fair share. No taxation without representation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, I know that, you know, civic education played a big role in you getting into politics back at Leland High School?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But I want to go back even further. Your dad was very civically involved. He worked with the local Chamber of Commerce in Campbell. Was it also something he was politically involved in? Were your parents interested in politics or was it more kind of civic engagement?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> So you’re bringing back some history to a bit, too. But it was during that time, as I’m a fourth generation Californian, speaking more Spanish than I do Chinese. And in the Chinese culture and Asian Pacific Islander culture, politics is not an entity that you would pursue, is not a career that you pursue. Typical occupations would include becoming a doctor, lawyer or an engineer. And like my father, he want to be to become a doctor. But in fact I wasn’t as academic in that way. But I also realized in the community as I grew up as a younger adult, that perhaps I was not able to afford home in the community that was born and raised in, and that representation also equally mattered. And so that’s where helped what helped galvanize me into that realm to say, if we want to participate, then you need to be part of the system as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And you got involved pretty early. I mean, were you like high school class president or something? Did you run? A lot of our guests have done that, not you?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Scott, I must admit I’m an introvert and I still consider myself really as well. Yes. But during this time, I also realized that I was coming to the sense of identity. Growing up in, as I mentioned, born and raised in San Jose. I remember we were a victim of a hate crime in which there was graffiti spray painted on my house saying ‘Go back to China.’ And during this time also identifying and coming to grips with my own sexual orientation as openly LGBT. And of course, growing up in this period of time, I know it’s hard to imagine, but the Internet was not a thing, we didn’t see phenomenal stars in the areas of sports, academics and media. And so I struggled because we didn’t talk about it at home. You didn’t see it on TV, you didn’t talk about it in school. So where else were you to learn about this? And so that’s where I also realized the importance of just being present and helping to provide a voice to those that are underrepresented.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I read a story about you coming out to your dad. I think he asked you about your sexual orientation on a scale, is that right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yes, yes on a scale of 1 to 10. Well, what he said was, as a loving father, …We sat down and he said, ‘Son, on a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think I am in terms of gay or straight?’ And I said, ‘This is a weird question for a father to be asking your son.’ But he said, ‘Well, I think I’m about a one and a half and one being straight. I think about one and a half, and I think that’s probably where I would be. Where do you think you are?’ And that was his loving way, so to speak, and how he asked. But, this again was back in early 2000, and we didn’t have the type of rights and acceptance that we do today. So it was a very frightening time in which there was many of conversation about being disowned, about what does it mean and frankly, not being educated on what it meant to identify as being openly gay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So what number —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> How did you respond?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> What I said at the time was 7, to try to give some flexibility and his response was, ‘Okay, so you mostly like men.’ And again, I used that number because I didn’t know. I’ve never been asked.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Isn’t seven a lucky number in the Chinese culture?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Eight is actually it is a lucky number. But I just I mean, I panicked and I said, Oh, what do I say?’ And I didn’t know. I didn’t have these experiences and of what it meant. And truly it was just a gut reaction to try to find some safe space. And but luckily, he did say, ‘Well, I still love you anyway. I am a doctor and I made you this way.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So you, you know, overcame your introversion and you ran for the Campbell City Council in 2004, I think it was. And you lost the first time, right? So what was it that finally got you to say? As I recall also, you did like a senior project in college looking at how do you get elected to the Campbell City Council. Is that right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> That’s right. Yes. So one of my professors, Terry Christensen, long time politico in San Jose at San Jose State, that was the senior project in which I did that assessment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We call that ‘Me-search.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well, again, I said, ‘Oh, okay, this sounds interesting. Why don’t I just do this and get a college credit for it as well?’ And I again realized as I knocked on doors for individuals, I was 20 at the time. And so you think, is it age? That’s the number one barrier or challenge? Is it sexual orientation or is it my ethnicity? And I will submit to you that is actually my ethnicity. I’d had a number of individuals asking me, who do I root for in the Olympics, the United States or Japan? And again, I’m Chinese-American. And so there’s a question about loyalty and about patriotism that still permeates in our politics today, unfortunately.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And did that have any effect when you won, when you took a seat on the council? Did any of those kind of prejudices or attitudes? Did you feel that within city government as well? Because Campbell is a lot more white than San Jose, it’s, you know, within San Jose, but it’s a different place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Certainly. I think many of those factors, whether it be age, imagine than being 23 then at the time to being elected at 23. Individuals questioning does this individual demonstrate experience to govern, whether or not is it mean that, oh, this isn’t, you know, an Asian-American or someone who may be foreign and not quite truly American or the accusations, therefore, and then, of course, that of LGBT, many said in terms of whisper campaigns, which is prevalent during that period of time, about ‘Is he going to bring “homosexual” agenda from San Francisco to the city of Campbell?’ So there are a number of challenges that I faced, but I think these are important to recognize so that we can create environments such that others can also serve and these lived experiences and capacities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You got elected to the Assembly in 2014 and were a member and I think at one point co-chaired the LGBTQ caucus up there. And I was just looking, you know, at the membership. And it’s not only is it larger than than it used to be, but it’s so much more diverse geographically. I mean, there’s people from Chula Vista and, you know, the Inland Empire, couple of them really. And, you know, I’m wondering what you make of that? I mean, are you seeing an echo of that among your Republican colleagues? Not that they’re gay necessarily, but they look at issues differently than they did a decade ago?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> California, as both of you have well reported, is a different beast in itself. And we hope that we reflect the values of everyday Californians. But frankly, everyday Americans. If you look at the diversity in the makeup of the LGBT legislative caucus, we affectionately say we’ve completed the rainbow. In other words, we have an openly Black member, LGBT member of the legislature in Corey Jackson. Female Latinos, Asian Pacific Islander, bisexual, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, we still have yet to have an openly trans member of the California state legislature in which, for example, the state of Virginia beat California in terms of representation. So we still have a long ways to go. But again, when this is so personal and dealing with so many of our colleagues, these are lived experiences. And when we tackle these policy issues, the individuals have a sense of who we are. They’ve met our significant others, our children, our families, and we work with them. And so I’m hopeful that they’ll continually change the hearts and minds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I want to ask about your brother. He took a different path in public service, became a police officer. Talk about your relationship and maybe how that informs the work that you do as a legislator.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> I appreciate that question very much. Because I also authored and passed a piece of legislation that would require diversity training with respect to LGBT education and cultural sensitivity and post the training for peace officers in the state of California. And in fact, just this week we have police officers coming from all over the country doing a training here in San Francisco right now because of that piece of legislation on the cultural sensitivity, on training police officers on standards and training. But that is an important relationship as well, too, especially when we are talking about the relationship with the LGBT community and the dark history, frankly, with the LGBT community and public safety. He’s been able to understand and have that conversation with some of his coworkers. Oftentimes when they’re out and about talking about the importance of representation, but also diversity in the most meaningful sense of it in an entity, an organization that perhaps historically and traditionally has been more rough around the edges with respect to diversity. But again, living in the Bay Area and in California, we’ve been able to really partner with law enforcement in that way to be accepting and also be a conduit to our communities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> One of the bills you authored a few years ago, I think was 2016 was AB 1887, which was a reaction to some of the very virulent anti-gay anti trans bills that were being passed in places like North Carolina, I believe. And what it did was it creates a list of states where travel to being banned at least in getting reimbursed by the state. That list has now grown, I think, to 26 states. And there’s an effort in the legislature from Toni Atkins, who is the president pro tem in the Senate, openly lesbian, to repeal it and replace it with something else. Where are you on that piece of legislation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yeah, thanks for the question. If we remember the context back in 2017 in North Carolina and the discriminatory laws that were passed, there was significant outrage from not only public sector but private sector. And frankly, that was the impetus for the piece of legislation in which we followed many other entities the NBA, the NCAA. Marc Benioff is here at Salesforce, as well as PayPal. And so many other Fortune 50 companies said that they would no longer expand and they would rescind any type of engagement in these states. And that worked. Many of these laws were repealed, and it was made very clear and well that this is not in the best interest of private sector as well. And that would be a significant financial and economic hit in attacking members of the LGBT community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, the progress to full equality is oftentimes like a pendulum and swings backwards. And that’s what we’re realizing in this day and age. When that law was passed, we were just a handful of states, close to 11 states. But as you referenced, now close to a majority of the states in the union now have discriminatory laws. And it’s important to remember, though, what we are talking about. There has been conversations about the outrage over such a ban. But let’s be focused on what the conversation is about. Many of these states allow teachers to knowingly misgender individuals and not be reprimanded. Many of these states are allowing licensed health care professionals from denying service based on their own personal beliefs or preventing any type of conversation of LGBT individuals in K-12 curriculum. That is the outrage that we’re talking about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But back to the question at hand, is the legislation working as intended? And unfortunately now with the majority of the states, we need to reevaluate how we can help tackle and win the hearts and minds of individuals. The proposal, then, is to take a look at repealing just a blanket ban, but replacing it with a proactive approach of a PSA, so to speak, that we welcome you to California. You are welcomed. And we have inclusive laws that will protect you. And that’s what this conversation is about. So I think it is appropriate, a conversation about how we can reimagine, how we can win the hearts and minds, especially as we’re seeing it being politicized for attacking our community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So are you a yes on SB 447?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> I’m hopeful we can get to that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, like, what’s missing?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well, I think there I think there are specifics on how is this funded? To which states are we going to identify? What these PSAs look like? What is the messaging? What’s the long term? And where’s the oversight? And that’s the key components that I think are important for us to legitimize, because at the end of the day, let’s remember what is actually happening. We are sending potentially public California employees into states into harm’s way in which there could potentially be no public accommodations for them. So do we want to protect individuals? And that’s an important thing to ask.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Because another one of the arguments against the ban is not just that, as Scott mentioned, the number of states passing these anti LGBTQ laws, has extrapolated, but also that it’s putting hinderance on everything from UC researchers trying to go to libraries in other states to, you know, the Cal football team. And I bet that will get even worse when they’re in the ACC. Is that something you’re thinking about as well as kind of the burden it’s placed on, you know, state institutions and employees?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Certainly. And I think these are relevant and fair points to be made. During this period of time, there have been auxiliary funds and foundations that have supplemented such resources for individuals to travel with private funds. And similarly, Fortune 50 companies have also said we don’t have the bandwidth any longer to be, you know, previously it was targeting one or two states. But now how do they implement this policy and go to 26 states and say, well, we’re not going to be present in 26 states. That is not going to be something that they can actually implement for themselves directly. So it is an appropriate conversation to have about how we can think about the current times that we’re in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, we California likes to think of itself as sort of a beacon of hope for LGBTQ folks. And in many ways, California is at the same time we’re seeing down in the Inland Empire and San Bernardino and Riverside counties school boards, in one case, voting to inform parents when their child identifies as trans at school. Another case not wanting to use curriculum with Harvey Milk referred to the civil rights icon from San Francisco. You know, the governor weighed in on the Harvey Milk piece of that, going to send textbooks down there if necessary. They sort of backed off a bit. But like, what are your thoughts? What’s the state’s role in those questions?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well, I think it’s frightening. This is absolutely frightening that we’re seeing this in 2023 and that we’re seeing this being mirrored in many other places, not just in the country, but within within the borders of the state of California. And in fact, even you referred to what we call forced outings, a piece of legislation, even in our state of California that was introduced by a Republican colleague in the legislature this year. And so we are in significant pause of alarm. In fact, the Human Rights Campaign have said they’re in a state of emergency given all of the attacks throughout the country. And we’re seeing these being mirrored everywhere. So the role of the state is fundamentally to help promote the diversity, inclusion and equity as much as possible, especially in comparison to these other states in which they are going the opposite direction and targeting the most vulnerable members. We hope to be a state of inclusion of education and respecting not just tolerating, but accepting diversity of opinion and also experiences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Another effort you’ve been involved in this year is to put a ballot measure before voters next year to officially remove Prop 8 from the state constitution. This was a ballot measure passed back in 2008 by California voters banning same sex marriage. It has been overturned by the courts, but you want to remove it from state statute. What’s kind of your mission behind that and putting that before the voters?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well let’s again, remember the times that we’re in. No one would ever imagine that marriage equality for same sex couples would be a threat in our state of California in this day and age. But unfortunately, that is the reality that we’re dealt with. Oftentimes, it’s said if they show you who they are, believe them. And the United States Supreme Court has rolled back protections that have been afforded for over 50 years with reproductive freedom. In that decision, two justices decided that marriage equality will be next. We should believe them. And that’s why we have this language that was passed in 2008 with Proposition 8 which eliminated the rights of same sex couples to marry. When and if indeed the United States Supreme Court comes after marriage equality, that would revert back to the states. And if so, in California, it would not be law of the land. And that’s why it’s important that we enshrine constitutional protections for marriage equality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I’ll just say also that this piece of legislation required two-thirds of the legislature to vote in support. There was zero no votes in the California state legislature with multiple Republicans in both houses supporting it. And also those typical organizations that were in opposition from the religious denominations: the Catholic Conference, the Church of Latter Day Saints were neutral, did not weigh in in opposition of this measure. So it’s a different time and day that we’re in, in California. But of course, we can’t take things for granted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, exactly. And it’s going to be on the ballot in March, which is presidential primary, lower turnout than November. Why put it on in March? And what’s at stake like? You don’t want to just get 50% plus one here to get it passed, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And in fact, Scott, we are going to be putting it on the presidential in the November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Oh you are?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yes. We have a pending piece of legislation that will move it to the November 2024 ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Was that like a procedural error or what happened?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> It was just procedural to allow us to go to a November election that would allow us to focus on that election versus the primary election. Of course, in the general election, in terms of viability, it is most conducive and better for the electorate and the results of the election for this measure. And it looks like it’s polling in the high 70 percentile of success. Again, given the bipartisan support and the nature of this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Okay, we are almost out of time. But we’d like to ask kind of a fun question. I know that in June you turned 40, which is like 60 in gay years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> You had to remind me Scott, thanks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Wat did you do to celebrate? Like, what’s different now that you’re 40?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> You know, it just comes at a time that you just a recap and think about what else is to be done. And it’s important time. But thanks for that reminder, Scott. You’re so kind.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Anytime. Evan Low, Assemblyman, thanks so much for talking with us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Thanks to you both.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All right. That’ll do it for this edition of Political Breakdown, a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Katherine Monahan. I’m Guy Marzorati.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. Thanks so much for listening. We’ll see you next time, everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Plus, 'Hot Labor Summer' Hits City Hall in Los Angeles and San Jose",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721156853,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 84,
"wordCount": 5860
},
"headData": {
"title": "Evan Low on Barriers to Democracy and California's Travel Ban | KQED",
"description": "Plus, 'Hot Labor Summer' Hits City Hall in Los Angeles and San Jose",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Evan Low on Barriers to Democracy and California's Travel Ban",
"datePublished": "2023-08-10T18:25:49-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-16T12:07:33-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC2537183878.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11957927/evan-low-on-barriers-to-democracy-and-californias-travel-ban",
"audioDuration": 1694000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>City employees hit the picket lines in Los Angeles while government \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11957679/4500-san-jose-city-workers-are-about-to-go-on-strike\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">workers in San José plan to strike next week\u003c/a>. Scott and Guy Marzorati discuss the politics of labor unrest at city halls and a \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11957686/experts-say-political-deserts-still-preventing-california-voters-from-casting-ballots\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">new survey on voter participation\u003c/a> in California. Then, Assemblymember Evan Low joins to discuss barriers to civic participation, his groundbreaking rise in elected office, whether California should sunset its state-sponsored travel ban to states with anti-LGBTQ laws and his effort to remove Proposition 8 from the state constitution.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, everybody. From KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati, in this week for Marisa Lagos. On today’s show, Assemblyman Evan Low. He got the politics bug at an early age and hasn’t slowed down. Today, he represents a slice of Silicon Valley in the state legislature.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> He was the youngest and first openly gay mayor of Campbell and at age 26, the youngest Asian-American mayor ever. We’ll talk to him about his push to have voters formally remove the ban on same sex marriage from the California Constitution and a whole lot more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But first Guy, this is really becoming known as the Hot Labor Summer. A lot of labor unrest. Of course, everyone knows about the SAG-AFTRA strike, the Writers Guild strike down in L.A. But there was another strike, a one day strike in L.A., 11,000 or so city workers. And then you’ve been covering in your neck of the woods, San Jose. What’s going on?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, ‘Hot Labor Summer’ spreads to city hall. We saw in Los Angeles this week, on Tuesday, SEIU representing 7000 city workers holding a one day strike, you know, shutting down local pools, you know, community activities, having a broad impact there. San Jose, two unions representing city workers set to go on strike next Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday into Friday. And that has not been resolved. Both sides are back at mediation today and been told they’ve made some progress, but not enough to completely avert the strike to this point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I do think you’re seeing it’s, you know, part of a trend, as you mentioned, actors, writers, we seeing hotel workers in Southern California as well. This kind of fervor that I think is built up in large part because, look, workers have gone through the last few years of inflation. And when you’re dealing with a collective bargaining agreement, you haven’t had the chance to catch up with wages. Now, that’s all coming to fruition. You know, for folks in city hall, it might not be a great time because a lot of these local governments are now facing budget issues at this time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there’s also a worker shortage. I mean, there’s a it’s a hard time. I know pools in San Francisco. I swim a lot, play water polo. There’s they have a shortage of lifeguards. You know, they’re just having a hard time finding people. So that strengthens the hand, although in the case of San Jose are the contracts up?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah in San Jose, the contracts expired on June 30th. So that is relative, you know, makes more sense. The SEIU one was kind of an outlier in L.A. in the sense that they have an existing agreement. There have been a lot of discussions about kind of side negotiations on different issues that they’ve had to negotiate with the city. And so in that sense, it kind of came off as kind of a show of force, like, look, look at the kind of unity we have among members and the ability that we have to make an impact on city services if we walk off the job for a day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The politics, though, have been very interesting and very different in these two cities. I’ve noticed in Los Angeles you have Mayor Karen Bass, who sits on the committee that’s kind of dealing with bargaining, but she was endorsed by SEIU, running for mayor. And in fact, you heard the local leaders at some of the rallies that were held on Tuesday say, look, this has nothing to do with Karen Bass. We have you have nothing but love for the mayor, even though she has a real impact in leading that committee. On the flip side, Matt Mahan, who, you know, ran with a lot of business support in San Jose and won the mayorship there. He’s just one vote on a you know, along with ten other city council members to to direct the city manager. That’s who’s actually negotiating.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And the labor candidate lost, Cindy Chavez.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And the labor candidate lost and at the public comment on Tuesday. A lot of the comments were directed towards, you know, ‘We need the mayor to step up and increase these wages. We need the mayor to step in and take action.’ And at the very end of public comment, he said, like, look, folks, I’m just one I’m just one vote in this. But it’s kind of the different politics that we’re seeing in the two cities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Exactly. And we’ll find out how that unfolds next week. Also this week, there was a very interesting Berkeley IGS poll. It’s a series of polls that they’re doing kind of looking at the state of democracy in California, how voters are feeling about it, who votes, who doesn’t. And one of the key findings in that first poll released this week, right. Not a huge surprise, but it really brought home this notion that people who vote in California regularly are more likely to be white, college educated, higher income, more likely to be married, own their home. And, you know, when you when they’ve talked to black, Latino, Asian American voters, a lot of them feel they don’t have enough information to cast an informed ballot. And there’s a lot of reasons for that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I was struck, too, by the identification of kind of media deserts or information deserts, which campaigns, you know, they’re in the kind of crunch time of trying to get to a specific result. And they’re really targeting a lot of times towards the end of campaigns, people they know are going to turn out. So who gets left out of that? Maybe voters who haven’t voted in the last election are not likely to come out. And I think that’s where you kind of see that lack of information, pamphlets, mailers, things that regular voters get tired of by October. You know, for for other folks, they’re just not getting that same kind of communication.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there’s like the digital divide. They may not have laptops or access to the Internet language barriers. They may have been involved in the criminal justice system, may be low income is all kinds of things that kind of. Conspire against those folks from voting. And, you know, there were some interesting thoughts about ways to address that democracy dollars, which they’ve tried in Seattle, where they gave a $25 voucher.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And Oakland, didn’t Oakland do that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Oakland passed it, but they haven’t implemented because of the budget. But in Seattle, they’ve tried it. And according to Common Cause up there, it can only be cashed in for contributions to local candidates. And people who use those vouchers were 11 times more likely to vote. So we’ll see maybe some more conversation about that in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, it also brought to mind to me some research that the PPIC had done on election changes in California, voting changes. One of the things that this example reflected was that there’s great support for the kind of expansion of vote by mail, sending everybody a ballot by default, and that at least in the 2020 election, actually closed the gap in turnout between white California voters and then Black and Latino California voters. But at the same time, what accompanied that in a lot of cases was limiting or reducing the number of in-person voting places. And that actually cut in to the gains that were made in closing the divide. So you always hear you can’t put a price on democracy. But in a lot of ways we have made that choice when it comes to limiting in-person voting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And, you know, we’ve lowered the barriers to registering and voting in California with that is only half the battle. You got to get people to actually cast the ballots. All right. We’re going take a short break. And when we come back, we’re going to be joined by Silicon Valley Assembly member Evan Low. You’re listening to Political Breakdown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And welcome back to Political Breakdown, I’m Scott Shafer here with Guy Marzorati. We’re happy to have on the show today, live and in-person, Evan Low. He’s broken barriers in his political career: the first openly gay mayor of Campbell down in Silicon Valley and at age 26 or was it 29? I think was 26. The youngest Asian-American mayor anywhere in the U.S. Now, he’s a veteran up in the state Assembly where he’s been there since 2014. Low is a champion for LGBTQ rights and a lot more. Evan Low, welcome to Political Breakdown. How old were you when you became mayor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> I was 26 years old at that ripe age. So, yeah, there are, of course, fresher faces these days, too, and that’s a good thing to see.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Exactly. So we were talking about the elections and some of the barriers to voting. You’re on the elections committee in the Assembly. What are your thoughts about what kind of incentives can we give people to vote?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well, we’ve done quite a bit in the state of California making Election Day a participatory event and trying to remove as many barriers as possible, whereas in other states are increasing barriers to entry. And so we’re going to continue with that. I authored legislation to lower the voting age to 17 and a half, coauthored by now Congressman Kevin Mullin, because both of us prioritize civics, in which in you’re a senior in high school classroom, why not be taught how to vote? And it is relevant to you. And imagine that political candidates and for public office would actually go to high school campuses because now you have an eligible voting pool and that those candidates will be speaking specifically to issues related to young people. And young individuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Voters turned thumbs down on that, didn’t they?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yes we were perhaps a little bit ahead of our times.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Parents are probably like ‘I’m not going to let them vote, they’re irresponsible.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> We lost by about 8% or so. But I think it’s important to help empower the next generation, especially as they are paying their taxes and paying their fair share. No taxation without representation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Well, I know that, you know, civic education played a big role in you getting into politics back at Leland High School?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But I want to go back even further. Your dad was very civically involved. He worked with the local Chamber of Commerce in Campbell. Was it also something he was politically involved in? Were your parents interested in politics or was it more kind of civic engagement?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> So you’re bringing back some history to a bit, too. But it was during that time, as I’m a fourth generation Californian, speaking more Spanish than I do Chinese. And in the Chinese culture and Asian Pacific Islander culture, politics is not an entity that you would pursue, is not a career that you pursue. Typical occupations would include becoming a doctor, lawyer or an engineer. And like my father, he want to be to become a doctor. But in fact I wasn’t as academic in that way. But I also realized in the community as I grew up as a younger adult, that perhaps I was not able to afford home in the community that was born and raised in, and that representation also equally mattered. And so that’s where helped what helped galvanize me into that realm to say, if we want to participate, then you need to be part of the system as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And you got involved pretty early. I mean, were you like high school class president or something? Did you run? A lot of our guests have done that, not you?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Scott, I must admit I’m an introvert and I still consider myself really as well. Yes. But during this time, I also realized that I was coming to the sense of identity. Growing up in, as I mentioned, born and raised in San Jose. I remember we were a victim of a hate crime in which there was graffiti spray painted on my house saying ‘Go back to China.’ And during this time also identifying and coming to grips with my own sexual orientation as openly LGBT. And of course, growing up in this period of time, I know it’s hard to imagine, but the Internet was not a thing, we didn’t see phenomenal stars in the areas of sports, academics and media. And so I struggled because we didn’t talk about it at home. You didn’t see it on TV, you didn’t talk about it in school. So where else were you to learn about this? And so that’s where I also realized the importance of just being present and helping to provide a voice to those that are underrepresented.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I read a story about you coming out to your dad. I think he asked you about your sexual orientation on a scale, is that right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yes, yes on a scale of 1 to 10. Well, what he said was, as a loving father, …We sat down and he said, ‘Son, on a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think I am in terms of gay or straight?’ And I said, ‘This is a weird question for a father to be asking your son.’ But he said, ‘Well, I think I’m about a one and a half and one being straight. I think about one and a half, and I think that’s probably where I would be. Where do you think you are?’ And that was his loving way, so to speak, and how he asked. But, this again was back in early 2000, and we didn’t have the type of rights and acceptance that we do today. So it was a very frightening time in which there was many of conversation about being disowned, about what does it mean and frankly, not being educated on what it meant to identify as being openly gay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So what number —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> How did you respond?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> What I said at the time was 7, to try to give some flexibility and his response was, ‘Okay, so you mostly like men.’ And again, I used that number because I didn’t know. I’ve never been asked.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Isn’t seven a lucky number in the Chinese culture?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Eight is actually it is a lucky number. But I just I mean, I panicked and I said, Oh, what do I say?’ And I didn’t know. I didn’t have these experiences and of what it meant. And truly it was just a gut reaction to try to find some safe space. And but luckily, he did say, ‘Well, I still love you anyway. I am a doctor and I made you this way.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So you, you know, overcame your introversion and you ran for the Campbell City Council in 2004, I think it was. And you lost the first time, right? So what was it that finally got you to say? As I recall also, you did like a senior project in college looking at how do you get elected to the Campbell City Council. Is that right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> That’s right. Yes. So one of my professors, Terry Christensen, long time politico in San Jose at San Jose State, that was the senior project in which I did that assessment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> We call that ‘Me-search.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well, again, I said, ‘Oh, okay, this sounds interesting. Why don’t I just do this and get a college credit for it as well?’ And I again realized as I knocked on doors for individuals, I was 20 at the time. And so you think, is it age? That’s the number one barrier or challenge? Is it sexual orientation or is it my ethnicity? And I will submit to you that is actually my ethnicity. I’d had a number of individuals asking me, who do I root for in the Olympics, the United States or Japan? And again, I’m Chinese-American. And so there’s a question about loyalty and about patriotism that still permeates in our politics today, unfortunately.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And did that have any effect when you won, when you took a seat on the council? Did any of those kind of prejudices or attitudes? Did you feel that within city government as well? Because Campbell is a lot more white than San Jose, it’s, you know, within San Jose, but it’s a different place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Certainly. I think many of those factors, whether it be age, imagine than being 23 then at the time to being elected at 23. Individuals questioning does this individual demonstrate experience to govern, whether or not is it mean that, oh, this isn’t, you know, an Asian-American or someone who may be foreign and not quite truly American or the accusations, therefore, and then, of course, that of LGBT, many said in terms of whisper campaigns, which is prevalent during that period of time, about ‘Is he going to bring “homosexual” agenda from San Francisco to the city of Campbell?’ So there are a number of challenges that I faced, but I think these are important to recognize so that we can create environments such that others can also serve and these lived experiences and capacities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You got elected to the Assembly in 2014 and were a member and I think at one point co-chaired the LGBTQ caucus up there. And I was just looking, you know, at the membership. And it’s not only is it larger than than it used to be, but it’s so much more diverse geographically. I mean, there’s people from Chula Vista and, you know, the Inland Empire, couple of them really. And, you know, I’m wondering what you make of that? I mean, are you seeing an echo of that among your Republican colleagues? Not that they’re gay necessarily, but they look at issues differently than they did a decade ago?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> California, as both of you have well reported, is a different beast in itself. And we hope that we reflect the values of everyday Californians. But frankly, everyday Americans. If you look at the diversity in the makeup of the LGBT legislative caucus, we affectionately say we’ve completed the rainbow. In other words, we have an openly Black member, LGBT member of the legislature in Corey Jackson. Female Latinos, Asian Pacific Islander, bisexual, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, we still have yet to have an openly trans member of the California state legislature in which, for example, the state of Virginia beat California in terms of representation. So we still have a long ways to go. But again, when this is so personal and dealing with so many of our colleagues, these are lived experiences. And when we tackle these policy issues, the individuals have a sense of who we are. They’ve met our significant others, our children, our families, and we work with them. And so I’m hopeful that they’ll continually change the hearts and minds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I want to ask about your brother. He took a different path in public service, became a police officer. Talk about your relationship and maybe how that informs the work that you do as a legislator.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> I appreciate that question very much. Because I also authored and passed a piece of legislation that would require diversity training with respect to LGBT education and cultural sensitivity and post the training for peace officers in the state of California. And in fact, just this week we have police officers coming from all over the country doing a training here in San Francisco right now because of that piece of legislation on the cultural sensitivity, on training police officers on standards and training. But that is an important relationship as well, too, especially when we are talking about the relationship with the LGBT community and the dark history, frankly, with the LGBT community and public safety. He’s been able to understand and have that conversation with some of his coworkers. Oftentimes when they’re out and about talking about the importance of representation, but also diversity in the most meaningful sense of it in an entity, an organization that perhaps historically and traditionally has been more rough around the edges with respect to diversity. But again, living in the Bay Area and in California, we’ve been able to really partner with law enforcement in that way to be accepting and also be a conduit to our communities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> One of the bills you authored a few years ago, I think was 2016 was AB 1887, which was a reaction to some of the very virulent anti-gay anti trans bills that were being passed in places like North Carolina, I believe. And what it did was it creates a list of states where travel to being banned at least in getting reimbursed by the state. That list has now grown, I think, to 26 states. And there’s an effort in the legislature from Toni Atkins, who is the president pro tem in the Senate, openly lesbian, to repeal it and replace it with something else. Where are you on that piece of legislation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yeah, thanks for the question. If we remember the context back in 2017 in North Carolina and the discriminatory laws that were passed, there was significant outrage from not only public sector but private sector. And frankly, that was the impetus for the piece of legislation in which we followed many other entities the NBA, the NCAA. Marc Benioff is here at Salesforce, as well as PayPal. And so many other Fortune 50 companies said that they would no longer expand and they would rescind any type of engagement in these states. And that worked. Many of these laws were repealed, and it was made very clear and well that this is not in the best interest of private sector as well. And that would be a significant financial and economic hit in attacking members of the LGBT community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, the progress to full equality is oftentimes like a pendulum and swings backwards. And that’s what we’re realizing in this day and age. When that law was passed, we were just a handful of states, close to 11 states. But as you referenced, now close to a majority of the states in the union now have discriminatory laws. And it’s important to remember, though, what we are talking about. There has been conversations about the outrage over such a ban. But let’s be focused on what the conversation is about. Many of these states allow teachers to knowingly misgender individuals and not be reprimanded. Many of these states are allowing licensed health care professionals from denying service based on their own personal beliefs or preventing any type of conversation of LGBT individuals in K-12 curriculum. That is the outrage that we’re talking about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But back to the question at hand, is the legislation working as intended? And unfortunately now with the majority of the states, we need to reevaluate how we can help tackle and win the hearts and minds of individuals. The proposal, then, is to take a look at repealing just a blanket ban, but replacing it with a proactive approach of a PSA, so to speak, that we welcome you to California. You are welcomed. And we have inclusive laws that will protect you. And that’s what this conversation is about. So I think it is appropriate, a conversation about how we can reimagine, how we can win the hearts and minds, especially as we’re seeing it being politicized for attacking our community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So are you a yes on SB 447?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> I’m hopeful we can get to that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, like, what’s missing?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well, I think there I think there are specifics on how is this funded? To which states are we going to identify? What these PSAs look like? What is the messaging? What’s the long term? And where’s the oversight? And that’s the key components that I think are important for us to legitimize, because at the end of the day, let’s remember what is actually happening. We are sending potentially public California employees into states into harm’s way in which there could potentially be no public accommodations for them. So do we want to protect individuals? And that’s an important thing to ask.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Because another one of the arguments against the ban is not just that, as Scott mentioned, the number of states passing these anti LGBTQ laws, has extrapolated, but also that it’s putting hinderance on everything from UC researchers trying to go to libraries in other states to, you know, the Cal football team. And I bet that will get even worse when they’re in the ACC. Is that something you’re thinking about as well as kind of the burden it’s placed on, you know, state institutions and employees?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Certainly. And I think these are relevant and fair points to be made. During this period of time, there have been auxiliary funds and foundations that have supplemented such resources for individuals to travel with private funds. And similarly, Fortune 50 companies have also said we don’t have the bandwidth any longer to be, you know, previously it was targeting one or two states. But now how do they implement this policy and go to 26 states and say, well, we’re not going to be present in 26 states. That is not going to be something that they can actually implement for themselves directly. So it is an appropriate conversation to have about how we can think about the current times that we’re in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, we California likes to think of itself as sort of a beacon of hope for LGBTQ folks. And in many ways, California is at the same time we’re seeing down in the Inland Empire and San Bernardino and Riverside counties school boards, in one case, voting to inform parents when their child identifies as trans at school. Another case not wanting to use curriculum with Harvey Milk referred to the civil rights icon from San Francisco. You know, the governor weighed in on the Harvey Milk piece of that, going to send textbooks down there if necessary. They sort of backed off a bit. But like, what are your thoughts? What’s the state’s role in those questions?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well, I think it’s frightening. This is absolutely frightening that we’re seeing this in 2023 and that we’re seeing this being mirrored in many other places, not just in the country, but within within the borders of the state of California. And in fact, even you referred to what we call forced outings, a piece of legislation, even in our state of California that was introduced by a Republican colleague in the legislature this year. And so we are in significant pause of alarm. In fact, the Human Rights Campaign have said they’re in a state of emergency given all of the attacks throughout the country. And we’re seeing these being mirrored everywhere. So the role of the state is fundamentally to help promote the diversity, inclusion and equity as much as possible, especially in comparison to these other states in which they are going the opposite direction and targeting the most vulnerable members. We hope to be a state of inclusion of education and respecting not just tolerating, but accepting diversity of opinion and also experiences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Another effort you’ve been involved in this year is to put a ballot measure before voters next year to officially remove Prop 8 from the state constitution. This was a ballot measure passed back in 2008 by California voters banning same sex marriage. It has been overturned by the courts, but you want to remove it from state statute. What’s kind of your mission behind that and putting that before the voters?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Well let’s again, remember the times that we’re in. No one would ever imagine that marriage equality for same sex couples would be a threat in our state of California in this day and age. But unfortunately, that is the reality that we’re dealt with. Oftentimes, it’s said if they show you who they are, believe them. And the United States Supreme Court has rolled back protections that have been afforded for over 50 years with reproductive freedom. In that decision, two justices decided that marriage equality will be next. We should believe them. And that’s why we have this language that was passed in 2008 with Proposition 8 which eliminated the rights of same sex couples to marry. When and if indeed the United States Supreme Court comes after marriage equality, that would revert back to the states. And if so, in California, it would not be law of the land. And that’s why it’s important that we enshrine constitutional protections for marriage equality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I’ll just say also that this piece of legislation required two-thirds of the legislature to vote in support. There was zero no votes in the California state legislature with multiple Republicans in both houses supporting it. And also those typical organizations that were in opposition from the religious denominations: the Catholic Conference, the Church of Latter Day Saints were neutral, did not weigh in in opposition of this measure. So it’s a different time and day that we’re in, in California. But of course, we can’t take things for granted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, exactly. And it’s going to be on the ballot in March, which is presidential primary, lower turnout than November. Why put it on in March? And what’s at stake like? You don’t want to just get 50% plus one here to get it passed, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And in fact, Scott, we are going to be putting it on the presidential in the November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Oh you are?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Yes. We have a pending piece of legislation that will move it to the November 2024 ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Was that like a procedural error or what happened?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> It was just procedural to allow us to go to a November election that would allow us to focus on that election versus the primary election. Of course, in the general election, in terms of viability, it is most conducive and better for the electorate and the results of the election for this measure. And it looks like it’s polling in the high 70 percentile of success. Again, given the bipartisan support and the nature of this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Okay, we are almost out of time. But we’d like to ask kind of a fun question. I know that in June you turned 40, which is like 60 in gay years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> You had to remind me Scott, thanks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Wat did you do to celebrate? Like, what’s different now that you’re 40?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> You know, it just comes at a time that you just a recap and think about what else is to be done. And it’s important time. But thanks for that reminder, Scott. You’re so kind.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Anytime. Evan Low, Assemblyman, thanks so much for talking with us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Evan Low:\u003c/strong> Thanks to you both.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All right. That’ll do it for this edition of Political Breakdown, a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Katherine Monahan. I’m Guy Marzorati.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. Thanks so much for listening. We’ll see you next time, everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11957927/evan-low-on-barriers-to-democracy-and-californias-travel-ban",
"authors": [
"255",
"227"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_22235"
],
"featImg": "news_11957948",
"label": "source_news_11957927"
},
"news_11957359": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11957359",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11957359",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1691112353000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1691112353,
"format": "audio",
"title": "Trump's California Advantage and Encampment Politics",
"headTitle": "Trump’s California Advantage and Encampment Politics | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As Donald Trump faces his third criminal indictment, Scott and Guy Marzorati discuss changes to the state’s Republican primary that could benefit the former president, with Los Angeles Times political writer Seema Mehta. Then, as mayors around the state push to clear homeless encampments, Scott and Guy share what voters in a recent San Jose focus group had to say about the issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, everybody. From KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati in this week for Marisa Lagos. And on today’s show, mayors in California’s biggest cities are feeling political pressure to reduce homelessness. This week, we sat down with some San Jose voters to hear how they view the problem and possible solutions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Also, Donald Trump’s legal problems are piling up, but that didn’t stop the Republican Party in California from changing its delegate allocation rules for the March presidential primary in a way that will likely benefit who else? The former president. And that’s where we’re going to begin today. That meeting of the Republican Party in Irvine this past weekend. It was covered by L.A. Times reporter Seema Mehta, who joins us now. Hey, Seema.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Hey, thanks for having me on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So before we get to that delegate issue, let’s talk about what happened today in Washington. Of course, former president pleading not guilty to these charges that he conspired to stay in office even though he knew the election had been lost to Joe Biden. What is your sense of, you know, what are you hearing from Republicans or others in California? Anything that might surprise us? Or is it sort of like the talking points.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> What we’ve seen, you know, all along, which is for his fans, for his base, they don’t they believe this is all which they don’t. They that he was many of them still believe he actually won the election, which we all know he did not. And, you know, this is also the third set of charges that he’s been in that alone. And that hasn’t put any sort of, you know, dent in his popularity. So it’ll be awesome to see how it unfolds. And, you know, there’s also still one more case out there in Georgia. But if it’s what we’ve seen to date, it probably won’t have much of an impact on his popularity among many Republican voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And that’s been true here in California, too. I mean, he’s had a wide lead over DeSantis in state polling as well. Scott, you talked to someone this week who was happy to speak out about the indictments, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, the speaker emerita was in San Francisco. This was a celebration of the 150th year of the cable car. And afterwards, she had a little scrum with reporters. And of course, people did ask her about these latest charges against Trump. And, you know, she didn’t surprisingly didn’t want to get into the politics too much. But she you know, she was really proud, I think, of the committee, the January 6th committee that she created when she was still Speaker that investigated. They didn’t have, of course, the indictment power, but they pretty much, you know, created a roadmap that the Department of Justice and the special prosecutor, you know, Jack Smith, used to hand down this indictment this week. And so that was really her focus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I mean, she did say she couldn’t help herself, that, you know, the Republican Party has sort of dragged itself into the mud on this and, you know, like seem, as you said, I don’t think she sees any change in that sentiment, at least not in the short term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And speaking of the party Seema, you were down in Irvine last weekend for a meeting of state party officials. And really the focus seemed to be about the the upcoming presidential primary here in California. It’s moving up for a presidential year to March. What were some of the changes that the delegates that the leaders of the state Republican Party were debating?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Well, because our primaries taking place earlier than it often does, and it’s taking place March 5th. The state Republican Party’s rules in terms of delegate delicate allocation have to align with RNC rules for early states. And this is a little in the weeds but one of those one of those requirements is having some proportionality in how you how you allocate your delegates. California has 169 delegates to the Republican nominating convention, the most of any state in the nation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So even though the California Republican Party has not had very many successes statewide in California, and their numbers have obviously dwindled in terms of registered voters, they do have some clout when it comes to nominating, you know, a presidential nominee. So they had to change the way they sort of give out the states delegates. In the past, you know, we have currently have fifty-two congressional districts. We have 53. In the past, most of the delegates were allocated by congressional districts. And for each district, you’d get three delegates, which that was. There’s a rule change put in place about 20 years ago, which was meant to make the state more competitive, because, as you know, California is so big, it’s so expensive to campaign here. We have some of the most expensive media markets in the world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So this delegate by a district by district strategy was meant that, you know, if a campaign doesn’t have the money necessary to advertise statewide here, that they could, you know, sort of strategically select the districts that they think have the best shot in. It could be the ones that most match their, you know, their background, their you know, their policy positions. Or one of the fun things was if you look at a district like San Francisco, like Nancy Pelosi’s district or a district in L.A., these districts have very few Republicans. But you’d get the same three delegates from that as you would from like Kevin McCarthy’s district. So that would have been interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But because there was not proportionality, there was winner take all by district, had to change the rules. They debated a couple of different ways to do it. At the end, they went with if a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, that he or she will receive all 169 delegates. If no one hits the 50% mark, then the delegates will be allocated proportionally based on the statewide vote. But by making it a statewide vote, it just makes it so expensive to compete here. And it’s a lot of people fear that a lot of the candidates just what they won’t even bother, because, you know, we’re in a Super Tuesday with more than a dozen other states. And, you know, to have the resources to invest here, it’s it’s really expensive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it is. And of course, the most likely person to benefit, as we said, is Donald Trump there on the Berkeley IGs poll in May that showed Trump leading DeSantis, who was in second place, 44 to 26%. That might change a little bit one way or the other. But, you know, assuming Donald Trump doesn’t hit 50, let’s suppose, you know, lightning strikes and all these charges begin to pile up or somebody gets traction and takes votes away. What happens then if nobody hits 50% plus one?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Well, I mean, so actually the former president’s campaign may pushed for this because they believe, based on polling, that he can hit the 50. But if he doesn’t hit 50% plus one, then the delegates will be allocated proportionately. So say somebody gets 40% of vote, somebody gets 20% of it, then you get 40% of delegates, 20% of the delegates. What the polling shows right now, I mean, he would still look like a substantial number of delegates. But, you know, obviously they hit their goal is to to get across that 50% mark, because in banking, 169 delegates, you know, in early March is like that goes a long way toward securing the nomination.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And so is that really what’s behind the national party pushing this? They don’t want winner-take-all so early in the calendar where you could just amass a lot of delegates and potentially not draw out the primary contests?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Right, I mean, it’s supposed to … allow the debate about the nomination to continue for a little bit and not have it sewn up, you know, within a couple of weeks or months. And the other interesting thing is, you know, although our primary is March 5th, as you know, we all get our vote by mail ballots and those go out like in early February. So Californians will be voting not that long after people in Iowa and New Hampshire.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> As you reported, there was quite a bit of division within the party or at least some, and it got pretty vocal. Describe what the divide was there. Was a between DeSantis and Trump people or some other faction?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> It was really it was really confusing, honestly, because originally the state party was considering modifying their rules in another way. And I won’t get too into the weeds because it’s really it’s really in the weeds. But the way that they were initially doing it, backers of President Trump believed that it would harm him and would help Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The party ended up changing it because there was concern about how the delegates were allocated to this way that we just we just discussed, which, as I said, was backed by President Trump’s campaign.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the Trump supporters and the protesters there, they weren’t happy for a number of reasons. First, there was confusion about how exactly what exactly is legal, how it is going impact the primary in delegates. Number two it was being voted on by the executive committee, which is made up of 100 leaders of the state party. And they wanted to see a voted on at the convention where more than 1400 delegates would have voted or would have a voice on it on the floor at the convention in place in late September, early October. And then they also wanted to see a floor so that if you say if you have a candidate who gets, you know, 4% of the vote, that that wouldn’t qualify for delegates. They didn’t have an exact number but they did want to see a floor like you have to have a minimum of X amount of support to get delegates. And the state party said that they had to act now because the RNC deadline is 8:59 p.m. on October 1st and the state Republican Party is meeting that weekend. So the vote, the start of a vote would take place less than 12 hours before this deadline. And if they don’t hit that deadline, they stand to lose half their delegates to the Republican National Convention, which is, that would be an enormous embarrassment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You’ve been to a lot of party junkets like this — the Medal of Valor is in the mail, we promise. But have you seen something like this? Have you seen it happen before where, as you described, it sounds like there was even, you know, violence or shoving or that breaking out in the in the meeting?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, there there are passionate people in both parties, and sometimes they get a little carried away. And in this case, like, you know, the protesters tried to enter a meeting room, which is the Marriott in Irvine. Security guards or police stopped them, cool tensions. And then later on, the two groups are out there. There’s sort of two factions who are, you know, chanting Trump, or American First and all that. And then one of them starts calling the other one white nationalist. And then the people who are being called white nationalists call the other group open border supporters, and then like they got in each other’s faces, like they’re, you know, winning, like wagging a finger in each other’s faces. And then they started kind of jostling and it looked like it was going to get get worse until some other protesters sort of stepped in between the two groups. So it was it was a very chaotic day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, there is, I don’t know, conventional wisdom, I guess, that, you know, while Trump is the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination, he’s going to have a really hard time winning nationally. Although there was a New York Times poll this week showing him and Biden tied at 43. But I wonder if, you know, in quieter moments over a glass of, you know, whatever it is they drink. Do some of the party members, are they concerned that they’re really getting they’re putting their chips on a guy that can’t win in November?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Yes, there are people that are concerned about this. And there’s you know, as much as, you know, President Trump definitely has a large number of supporters here. There’s also a, you know, fairly vocal anti-Trump, anybody-but-Trump contingent. And a lot of them are really placing their bets on Ron DeSantis. But his campaign has really sputtered since he announced in May. I mean, I think a lot of the people who want a Trump alternative really had high hopes for him because of his leadership in Florida, in part because of his handling of the pandemic. And it’s since May. I mean, whether it’s money problems, you know, having to lay off a ton of your staff, making some unfortunate missteps, like saying were enslaved people learned skills that, you know, benefited them or supporting a curriculum that says that most recently. His numbers in the polls have not they’re not great against you know, President Trump is handily beating him in almost every poll.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I do think that there is frustration, but there is not a they don’t they haven’t settled on who the alternative is, who they think could prevail in and get the nomination and then could be successful against Joe Biden. That said, you know, President Trump won in 2016 while two, that he would win. So, you know, we’d never say we have no idea what’s happening between now and November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we’re out of the predictions business. Did this delegate process in California. Say anything to you about maybe where party leaders are and where they might be leaning more towards the former president or Ron DeSantis?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Well, I mean, the the state party is effectively controlled by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, even though not officially, but, you know, behind the scenes. And he, you know, has had I mean, I know he certainly has ups and downs with the president, but they’ve largely been allies for quite some time now. And McCarthy has used that to his advantage. For example, like David Valadao was one of the few Republicans who opposed Trump and that Trump didn’t go after him in terms of his reelection. And most people believe that is purely because because Kevin McCarthy was like, you know, let’s leave him alone, I need this district.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I think, you know, there isn’t a number of people, you know, in 2016 who are not huge supporters of Trump who now say they are. But it’s it’s it’s yeah, I mean, there’s certain things they have to say. Otherwise, you know, they’re going to stand to lose standing or they and they all want they all want to be delegates at the convention and they want to stay in the graces of whoever the nominee is. And, you know, whoever the presidential next president is. So, you know, officially they’re, you know, not picking sides. But I think a lot of people do believe that, you know, that they support Trump and that they, you know, and that this rule change certainly benefits him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And, you know, it wasn’t that long ago maybe it was a while ago now. But, you know, the party did used to have a healthy, moderate contingent. You know, when Duff Sundheim, for example, was the chair of the party, he’s still a Republican, I think. But there are you know, there really doesn’t seem to be any semblance of that voice in the party. They’ve just sort of like been drummed out or just gotten frustrated. I mean, you know, some of them joined the Lincoln Project. But, you know, that, you know, that’s not really what they probably prefer to be doing. They’d rather be part of a party.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Right. It’s it’s it has changed. The parties changed, but also the state has changed. And this also reflects national politics, which is Republican politics nationally have been overtaken by Trump. So that’s why you see some policies they support now that they probably wouldn’t have supported ten years ago. And if you remember, Arnold Schwarzenegger, last Republican governor, if he showed up at one of these events, he would be like loudly booed. And, you know, I mean, it would not be pretty — not that he would show up at one of these events — actually the last time he spoke at one of these events, he gave a sort of famous speech about how he told them that they were ‘dying at the box office’ because of their beliefs, so there are definitely fewer moderates in the party, both at the state level and also nationally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I think all three of us were there in 2016 in Burlingame at the state party meeting, the last time the former president, at that Trump was running for office, came and spoke before California Republicans. I don’t know if you remember this Seema, he had to go under the freeway — the fence off of 101 in order to enter the hotel from the back. But news came out shortly after these party rule changes that Trump is coming back to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> As I said early the state Republican Party convention is in the fall, the end of September or early October. And he’s going to speak at the Friday luncheon, and those protests outside of Burlingame in 2016 were nuts. As I was writing one of my stories this week. I was looking for that picture, that image of him sort of crawling or, you know, clambering over this concrete divider and having to come in the hotel the back way. And there was a ton of protesters outside of that, and it got kind of physical and testy at times. You know, I remember getting caught between a police line and a line of protesters, and that was not fun. So I do wonder what the situation is going to look like in Anaheim.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, of course. Of course OC is a little different than San Francisco in terms of who’s going to get animated about something like that. But what does it mean to the state party to have Trump there? And DeSantis is going to go as well. What do they reap?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> I’m sure there are going to be other presidential candidates. And it’s a huge sort of feather in their cap. I mean, it’ll excite their members. And as we said, they haven’t necessarily have much to be excited about in recent years in terms of their electoral success. So it will excite their members, it will excite donors and it’ll draw a ton of news. So, I mean, this is why one of the larger parties in recent and recent history, because just because of that. And I mean, if you remember back in the day they used to routinely get presidential candidates that Rick Perry, Chris Christie, all kinds of people. And recently they haven’t gotten as many. And so this will be I think this will be a very exciting convention.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> All that sounds really great for the state party leaders. Maybe not so great, though, for the California Republican House members in Orange County who have really tried to avoid anything having to do with Trump for the last few years. This convention in Anaheim, it’s happening two blocks from Michelle Steele’s district. What’s the outlook for for those kind of members with such a big circus coming to town?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Michelle Steel is in a little bit of a different spot because her husband is Shawn Steel and he’s California’s Republican National Committeeman. So, you know, when Trump arrived in California, they’ve greeted him on the tarmac. So that’s a little bit of a different case. But for some of these other people, like Scott Baugh who is running for that open Katie Porter seat and that’s a very, very tight district. I would be shocked if you saw him anywhere in the county, in southern California, anywhere near this thing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. All right. Seema Mehta rom The L.A. Times, thanks so much.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Thanks Seema.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All right. We’re going to take a short break now. And when we come back, we listened in on a conversation of voters in one of California’s largest cities about the politics of homelessness. And what we heard might surprise you. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer here with Guy Marzorati. And we’re going to shift gears right now. And, you know, there’s mayors in San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose are going to be facing reelection next year. You know, we’re never that far from another election. And top of mind for a lot of voters is homelessness and encampments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And earlier this week, we got to be flies on the wall as a group of voters in San Jose participated in a focus group conversation about homelessness and the cost of housing. And Scott, this is like you mentioned, such a big issue for mayors facing reelection in 2024. It routinely comes up on polls as a top issue for voters all over California. So we wanted to hear from a few of those voters in San Jose, as we’ve seen a lot of the conversation around the response to homelessness shift from a conversation about money, about funding to now you’re seeing a lot of, you know, switching more towards kind of a law enforcement response. These encampment bans that are popping up in a lot of major cities in San Diego, one went into effect on Monday. Just today, San Jose’s mayor introduced a proposal to ban encampments around schools. So it’s definitely you know, the conversation is shifting in the political sense as we get closer to when a lot of these mayors are going to have to go back before voters and presumably show some results.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, And of course, Governor Newsom has also been very vocal about this. He’s done press conferences in San Francisco, wanted to clean up the all the encampments under like freeway on ramps and off ramps. And so, as you said, we wanted to get these voters together and we reached out to a organization that does a lot of this on issues, David Binder Research. And we found a handful of folks and tell us why focus groups are better than or not better than but different from polls. I mean, polls are very useful.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Something we wanted to try out as kind of another reporting, you know, tool in our tool kit, so to speak. I think polling you get a sense from voters about maybe what issues are on their minds, what issues they’re hearing about. And you do routinely see homelessness as a top issue. But to hear actually voters talk through what kind of solutions they’d like to see, how, you know, when they say it’s a problem, how it’s actually, you know, affecting their life or, you know, how they’re thinking about it in a policy sense was interesting. And in a focus group, you are getting, you know, a bunch of people together kind of sounding off of each other. It’s not you know, we often do the man on the street, woman on the street. VOX You go up, ask someone a question, they’re not prepared for it. They’re, you know, maybe they give you 30 seconds. This was, you know, hour and a half of really just talking about housing affordability and homelessness in San Jose. And it started really with a discussion about, you know, folks entering homelessness, people who are experiencing homelessness in the community. You know, how does that process come about?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I was a little bit surprised off the bat that we didn’t hear a lot of the myths that you often hear about homelessness. These, you know, oh, it’s warm in California. Oh, you know, the services that are offered are a magnet. You didn’t hear a lot of that. And I think this, you know, excerpt kind of speaks to that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Focus group excerpt:\u003c/b> I think housing is the problem. It’s expensive. To maintain an apartment or I mean, not only do you have your rent, but the utilities here are ridiculously high.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So that was the first thing you heard ‘I think housing is the problem’ and you’ve seen that. I mean, I would point folks to this fascinating UCSF study that came out a few weeks ago that found 90% of people experiencing homelessness in California were living in California, two thirds of them born in California. So this is it’s not someone else’s problem.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And, you know, one of the things that came up during the conversation earlier this week with these voters, and we should say was a cross-section of voters from all over San Jose and different backgrounds, different kinds of professions. And one person was was unemployed. You know, a lot of discussion about, you know, maybe it would be smarter rather than trying to solve homelessness to prevent it. You know, if you can if you can keep people and so many people are living on the edge, they’re one disaster away from being evicted or not being able to pay the rent. And, you know, these folks really thought that through.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Totally, and I think that prevention angle is interesting because we have seen there was a study out today or this week about Santa Clara County and the effects, the positive effects that homelessness prevention have had in terms of, you know, cash assistance or, you know, eviction protections, just an amount of money that may seem small that can prevent someone from falling into homelessness. Because another thing that, you know, this UCSF study pointed out was the time span people often have when they find out they’re evicted or find out they have to leave a family members house is really short. It could be one day, three days, and you have to totally plan your life is really difficult. But from a political standpoint, there’s something about prevention that it’s not seen. Right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It’s the problem that didn’t happen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Right. Exactly. And I think that’s why we get to these discussions about encampments that you have seen politicians to turn to as far as making a show of clearing encampments. Another thing I, you know, that came up pretty early was the solutions part of this and to what extent these voters who may identify homelessness as a problem actually want to take part in a solution. And this often comes about in the context of would you like to see either temporary housing, affordable permanent housing built in your neighborhood? And we heard a lot of the same things that you hear anecdotally. There’s going to be, you know, crime. I’m worried about that. There’s going to be, you know, graffiti, debris. I’m worried about that. My property values are going to go down. And we’ve seen this in San Jose. I’ve done some reporting about temporary housing there and how a lot of the concerns don’t come to pass ultimately. But that was prevalent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And, you know, we saw here in San Francisco, you know, very liberal city by and large when that navigation center was on on the books as a possible, you know, place to be cited down in South Beach, along the waterfront. A lot of criticism, huge numbers of people coming out to protest that it’s been up and running. And, you know, as I as we’ve reported from our housing desk, yeah, like you said, a lot of those problems have not come to pass. Most of them have not come to pass. You know, and I was surprised some people in this group, one person in particular even said, look, I’ve got two spare bedrooms in my house. You know, if we could somehow, you know, sort of clear people ahead of time, I’d be willing to rent my place out. Now, You know, I don’t know that if that would actually come to pass when push came to shove. But I think you did hear among these folks is some real compassion, you know, in wanting to solve the problem, not just punish folks who are experiencing homelessness.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And I think here’s where the turn happened, is when it started to be phrased as, okay, you’re upset about encampments in your neighborhood. What if these temporary housing or shelters that were built, if that was framed as an alternative to the encampments that you’re seeing when that idea was thrown out, when that message was thrown out, you heard a kind of change in the tone in the room.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Focus group excerpt:\u003c/strong> “I’d say yes, because it’s better than having tents everywhere. They have to keep them clean. And, you know, there have to be rules, you know, with it…But yeah, if they move them from the tents in the neighborhood to the temporary housing in the neighborhood, that helps your property value.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I think there’s your messaging challenge for whether it’s London Breed, Matt Mahan, Todd, Gloria, all these mayors, in getting this housing built — framing it as, look, there are people experiencing homelessness in our community. They can be living in encampments or they can be in temporary housing. That kind of tradeoff might be more palatable for voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, And also, people talked about motels, hotel rooms that are vacant, you know, even tiny homes. I mean, it’s interesting because a number of these folks said, well, I don’t listen to the news. But they certainly seemed informed. I mean, they knew some of the intricacies of some of the policies that Mayor Mahan has been talking about down there in San Jose and, you know, very open to many things. But, of course, you know, one of the problems is just that it’s so expensive to build affordable housing. And where are you going to put like a sanctioned, you know, sort of\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> RV encampment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, exactly. You know, you see that kind of thing proposed and, you know, there’s organized and not so organized protests.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And as I mentioned, the latest policy Mahan is putting forward that he announced on Thursday with a councilmember, a more progressive councilmember he often spars with is this idea of an encampment ban. One rolled out in San Diego as well. I know you’ve been following in San Francisco ongoing litigation around the idea of clearing encampments. And this was raised, you know, in the conversation with voters. And I was surprised how many of them were pretty honest in viewing this as not a real true solution and more of a Band-Aid.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Focus group excerpt:\u003c/strong> “\u003ci>Should the homeless encampments be cleaned out or it’s like, wait, what do you think? You all named a couple of services that… \u003c/i>‘Cleaned up, not out. \u003ci>Cleaned up not out?\u003c/i> Yeah, I mean. Where are they going to go?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So that was interesting to hear voters kind of identify that as not really a true solution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And of course, you know, San Francisco spends a lot of money. The state is, you know, spending a lot of money, at least when the state was flush with a big budget surplus. And now we’re coming into leaner times, you know, city budgets, county budgets, the state budget, there’s less money to go around. And so it’s going to be interesting to see like some of these programs that did get some traction, for example, during the pandemic project, Homekey, that sort of thing. What happens to those? And can they build on some of the successes that they’ve had? And how are voters either, you know, in here in the Bay Area and elsewhere are going to react?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So what does this all mean for 2024? For one thing I’m really interested in following is to what extent do concerns about homelessness, so something you’d identify in a poll as a top issue actually translate into people becoming activated or feeling like, this is my issue and how I vote in a mayoral race is going to be really hinge on how this issue improves or doesn’t. And what we heard a lot of was people just feeling dispirited, people feeling, feeling defeated. It wasn’t that sense of I’m going to march in the streets about this. It’s you know, I think this cut kind of sums up a lot of what we heard from voters:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Focus group excerpt: \u003c/b>“That’s kind of why it was sad to me because it is expensive to live here and we don’t know their circumstance, but there was kids that were clean and playing outside and and that’s how they live now, you know, and I wish there was a better solution, but it seems like it’s just a big problem right now.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So you hear that, you know, I’m sad about it. It seems like a big problem. Does that translate into mayors getting voted out? That’s I think what what I’ll be interested in watching.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, exactly. And we’re going to find that out probably sooner rather than later. As you said at the top, we said three elections coming up for mayor in San Jose, San Francisco,\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> San Diego.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So we’ll get some answers. All right. Well, that’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. It’s a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Jim Bennett. For more politics coverage from KQED subscribe to our newsletter at KQED.org/newsletters. I’m Guy Marzorati.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. Thanks so much for listening. We’ll see you next time, everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 6388,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 76
},
"modified": 1700874552,
"excerpt": "Primary rule changes could lead to a large delegate haul for Trump. ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Primary rule changes could lead to a large delegate haul for Trump. ",
"title": "Trump's California Advantage and Encampment Politics | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Trump's California Advantage and Encampment Politics",
"datePublished": "2023-08-03T18:25:53-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:09:12-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "trumps-california-advantage-and-encampment-politics",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC1961962706.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11957359/trumps-california-advantage-and-encampment-politics",
"audioDuration": 1724000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As Donald Trump faces his third criminal indictment, Scott and Guy Marzorati discuss changes to the state’s Republican primary that could benefit the former president, with Los Angeles Times political writer Seema Mehta. Then, as mayors around the state push to clear homeless encampments, Scott and Guy share what voters in a recent San Jose focus group had to say about the issue.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, everybody. From KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I’m Guy Marzorati in this week for Marisa Lagos. And on today’s show, mayors in California’s biggest cities are feeling political pressure to reduce homelessness. This week, we sat down with some San Jose voters to hear how they view the problem and possible solutions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Also, Donald Trump’s legal problems are piling up, but that didn’t stop the Republican Party in California from changing its delegate allocation rules for the March presidential primary in a way that will likely benefit who else? The former president. And that’s where we’re going to begin today. That meeting of the Republican Party in Irvine this past weekend. It was covered by L.A. Times reporter Seema Mehta, who joins us now. Hey, Seema.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Hey, thanks for having me on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So before we get to that delegate issue, let’s talk about what happened today in Washington. Of course, former president pleading not guilty to these charges that he conspired to stay in office even though he knew the election had been lost to Joe Biden. What is your sense of, you know, what are you hearing from Republicans or others in California? Anything that might surprise us? Or is it sort of like the talking points.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> What we’ve seen, you know, all along, which is for his fans, for his base, they don’t they believe this is all which they don’t. They that he was many of them still believe he actually won the election, which we all know he did not. And, you know, this is also the third set of charges that he’s been in that alone. And that hasn’t put any sort of, you know, dent in his popularity. So it’ll be awesome to see how it unfolds. And, you know, there’s also still one more case out there in Georgia. But if it’s what we’ve seen to date, it probably won’t have much of an impact on his popularity among many Republican voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And that’s been true here in California, too. I mean, he’s had a wide lead over DeSantis in state polling as well. Scott, you talked to someone this week who was happy to speak out about the indictments, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, the speaker emerita was in San Francisco. This was a celebration of the 150th year of the cable car. And afterwards, she had a little scrum with reporters. And of course, people did ask her about these latest charges against Trump. And, you know, she didn’t surprisingly didn’t want to get into the politics too much. But she you know, she was really proud, I think, of the committee, the January 6th committee that she created when she was still Speaker that investigated. They didn’t have, of course, the indictment power, but they pretty much, you know, created a roadmap that the Department of Justice and the special prosecutor, you know, Jack Smith, used to hand down this indictment this week. And so that was really her focus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I mean, she did say she couldn’t help herself, that, you know, the Republican Party has sort of dragged itself into the mud on this and, you know, like seem, as you said, I don’t think she sees any change in that sentiment, at least not in the short term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And speaking of the party Seema, you were down in Irvine last weekend for a meeting of state party officials. And really the focus seemed to be about the the upcoming presidential primary here in California. It’s moving up for a presidential year to March. What were some of the changes that the delegates that the leaders of the state Republican Party were debating?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Well, because our primaries taking place earlier than it often does, and it’s taking place March 5th. The state Republican Party’s rules in terms of delegate delicate allocation have to align with RNC rules for early states. And this is a little in the weeds but one of those one of those requirements is having some proportionality in how you how you allocate your delegates. California has 169 delegates to the Republican nominating convention, the most of any state in the nation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So even though the California Republican Party has not had very many successes statewide in California, and their numbers have obviously dwindled in terms of registered voters, they do have some clout when it comes to nominating, you know, a presidential nominee. So they had to change the way they sort of give out the states delegates. In the past, you know, we have currently have fifty-two congressional districts. We have 53. In the past, most of the delegates were allocated by congressional districts. And for each district, you’d get three delegates, which that was. There’s a rule change put in place about 20 years ago, which was meant to make the state more competitive, because, as you know, California is so big, it’s so expensive to campaign here. We have some of the most expensive media markets in the world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So this delegate by a district by district strategy was meant that, you know, if a campaign doesn’t have the money necessary to advertise statewide here, that they could, you know, sort of strategically select the districts that they think have the best shot in. It could be the ones that most match their, you know, their background, their you know, their policy positions. Or one of the fun things was if you look at a district like San Francisco, like Nancy Pelosi’s district or a district in L.A., these districts have very few Republicans. But you’d get the same three delegates from that as you would from like Kevin McCarthy’s district. So that would have been interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But because there was not proportionality, there was winner take all by district, had to change the rules. They debated a couple of different ways to do it. At the end, they went with if a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, that he or she will receive all 169 delegates. If no one hits the 50% mark, then the delegates will be allocated proportionally based on the statewide vote. But by making it a statewide vote, it just makes it so expensive to compete here. And it’s a lot of people fear that a lot of the candidates just what they won’t even bother, because, you know, we’re in a Super Tuesday with more than a dozen other states. And, you know, to have the resources to invest here, it’s it’s really expensive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it is. And of course, the most likely person to benefit, as we said, is Donald Trump there on the Berkeley IGs poll in May that showed Trump leading DeSantis, who was in second place, 44 to 26%. That might change a little bit one way or the other. But, you know, assuming Donald Trump doesn’t hit 50, let’s suppose, you know, lightning strikes and all these charges begin to pile up or somebody gets traction and takes votes away. What happens then if nobody hits 50% plus one?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Well, I mean, so actually the former president’s campaign may pushed for this because they believe, based on polling, that he can hit the 50. But if he doesn’t hit 50% plus one, then the delegates will be allocated proportionately. So say somebody gets 40% of vote, somebody gets 20% of it, then you get 40% of delegates, 20% of the delegates. What the polling shows right now, I mean, he would still look like a substantial number of delegates. But, you know, obviously they hit their goal is to to get across that 50% mark, because in banking, 169 delegates, you know, in early March is like that goes a long way toward securing the nomination.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And so is that really what’s behind the national party pushing this? They don’t want winner-take-all so early in the calendar where you could just amass a lot of delegates and potentially not draw out the primary contests?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Right, I mean, it’s supposed to … allow the debate about the nomination to continue for a little bit and not have it sewn up, you know, within a couple of weeks or months. And the other interesting thing is, you know, although our primary is March 5th, as you know, we all get our vote by mail ballots and those go out like in early February. So Californians will be voting not that long after people in Iowa and New Hampshire.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> As you reported, there was quite a bit of division within the party or at least some, and it got pretty vocal. Describe what the divide was there. Was a between DeSantis and Trump people or some other faction?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> It was really it was really confusing, honestly, because originally the state party was considering modifying their rules in another way. And I won’t get too into the weeds because it’s really it’s really in the weeds. But the way that they were initially doing it, backers of President Trump believed that it would harm him and would help Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The party ended up changing it because there was concern about how the delegates were allocated to this way that we just we just discussed, which, as I said, was backed by President Trump’s campaign.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the Trump supporters and the protesters there, they weren’t happy for a number of reasons. First, there was confusion about how exactly what exactly is legal, how it is going impact the primary in delegates. Number two it was being voted on by the executive committee, which is made up of 100 leaders of the state party. And they wanted to see a voted on at the convention where more than 1400 delegates would have voted or would have a voice on it on the floor at the convention in place in late September, early October. And then they also wanted to see a floor so that if you say if you have a candidate who gets, you know, 4% of the vote, that that wouldn’t qualify for delegates. They didn’t have an exact number but they did want to see a floor like you have to have a minimum of X amount of support to get delegates. And the state party said that they had to act now because the RNC deadline is 8:59 p.m. on October 1st and the state Republican Party is meeting that weekend. So the vote, the start of a vote would take place less than 12 hours before this deadline. And if they don’t hit that deadline, they stand to lose half their delegates to the Republican National Convention, which is, that would be an enormous embarrassment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> You’ve been to a lot of party junkets like this — the Medal of Valor is in the mail, we promise. But have you seen something like this? Have you seen it happen before where, as you described, it sounds like there was even, you know, violence or shoving or that breaking out in the in the meeting?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, there there are passionate people in both parties, and sometimes they get a little carried away. And in this case, like, you know, the protesters tried to enter a meeting room, which is the Marriott in Irvine. Security guards or police stopped them, cool tensions. And then later on, the two groups are out there. There’s sort of two factions who are, you know, chanting Trump, or American First and all that. And then one of them starts calling the other one white nationalist. And then the people who are being called white nationalists call the other group open border supporters, and then like they got in each other’s faces, like they’re, you know, winning, like wagging a finger in each other’s faces. And then they started kind of jostling and it looked like it was going to get get worse until some other protesters sort of stepped in between the two groups. So it was it was a very chaotic day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, there is, I don’t know, conventional wisdom, I guess, that, you know, while Trump is the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination, he’s going to have a really hard time winning nationally. Although there was a New York Times poll this week showing him and Biden tied at 43. But I wonder if, you know, in quieter moments over a glass of, you know, whatever it is they drink. Do some of the party members, are they concerned that they’re really getting they’re putting their chips on a guy that can’t win in November?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Yes, there are people that are concerned about this. And there’s you know, as much as, you know, President Trump definitely has a large number of supporters here. There’s also a, you know, fairly vocal anti-Trump, anybody-but-Trump contingent. And a lot of them are really placing their bets on Ron DeSantis. But his campaign has really sputtered since he announced in May. I mean, I think a lot of the people who want a Trump alternative really had high hopes for him because of his leadership in Florida, in part because of his handling of the pandemic. And it’s since May. I mean, whether it’s money problems, you know, having to lay off a ton of your staff, making some unfortunate missteps, like saying were enslaved people learned skills that, you know, benefited them or supporting a curriculum that says that most recently. His numbers in the polls have not they’re not great against you know, President Trump is handily beating him in almost every poll.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I do think that there is frustration, but there is not a they don’t they haven’t settled on who the alternative is, who they think could prevail in and get the nomination and then could be successful against Joe Biden. That said, you know, President Trump won in 2016 while two, that he would win. So, you know, we’d never say we have no idea what’s happening between now and November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we’re out of the predictions business. Did this delegate process in California. Say anything to you about maybe where party leaders are and where they might be leaning more towards the former president or Ron DeSantis?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Well, I mean, the the state party is effectively controlled by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, even though not officially, but, you know, behind the scenes. And he, you know, has had I mean, I know he certainly has ups and downs with the president, but they’ve largely been allies for quite some time now. And McCarthy has used that to his advantage. For example, like David Valadao was one of the few Republicans who opposed Trump and that Trump didn’t go after him in terms of his reelection. And most people believe that is purely because because Kevin McCarthy was like, you know, let’s leave him alone, I need this district.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So I think, you know, there isn’t a number of people, you know, in 2016 who are not huge supporters of Trump who now say they are. But it’s it’s it’s yeah, I mean, there’s certain things they have to say. Otherwise, you know, they’re going to stand to lose standing or they and they all want they all want to be delegates at the convention and they want to stay in the graces of whoever the nominee is. And, you know, whoever the presidential next president is. So, you know, officially they’re, you know, not picking sides. But I think a lot of people do believe that, you know, that they support Trump and that they, you know, and that this rule change certainly benefits him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And, you know, it wasn’t that long ago maybe it was a while ago now. But, you know, the party did used to have a healthy, moderate contingent. You know, when Duff Sundheim, for example, was the chair of the party, he’s still a Republican, I think. But there are you know, there really doesn’t seem to be any semblance of that voice in the party. They’ve just sort of like been drummed out or just gotten frustrated. I mean, you know, some of them joined the Lincoln Project. But, you know, that, you know, that’s not really what they probably prefer to be doing. They’d rather be part of a party.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Right. It’s it’s it has changed. The parties changed, but also the state has changed. And this also reflects national politics, which is Republican politics nationally have been overtaken by Trump. So that’s why you see some policies they support now that they probably wouldn’t have supported ten years ago. And if you remember, Arnold Schwarzenegger, last Republican governor, if he showed up at one of these events, he would be like loudly booed. And, you know, I mean, it would not be pretty — not that he would show up at one of these events — actually the last time he spoke at one of these events, he gave a sort of famous speech about how he told them that they were ‘dying at the box office’ because of their beliefs, so there are definitely fewer moderates in the party, both at the state level and also nationally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I think all three of us were there in 2016 in Burlingame at the state party meeting, the last time the former president, at that Trump was running for office, came and spoke before California Republicans. I don’t know if you remember this Seema, he had to go under the freeway — the fence off of 101 in order to enter the hotel from the back. But news came out shortly after these party rule changes that Trump is coming back to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> As I said early the state Republican Party convention is in the fall, the end of September or early October. And he’s going to speak at the Friday luncheon, and those protests outside of Burlingame in 2016 were nuts. As I was writing one of my stories this week. I was looking for that picture, that image of him sort of crawling or, you know, clambering over this concrete divider and having to come in the hotel the back way. And there was a ton of protesters outside of that, and it got kind of physical and testy at times. You know, I remember getting caught between a police line and a line of protesters, and that was not fun. So I do wonder what the situation is going to look like in Anaheim.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, of course. Of course OC is a little different than San Francisco in terms of who’s going to get animated about something like that. But what does it mean to the state party to have Trump there? And DeSantis is going to go as well. What do they reap?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> I’m sure there are going to be other presidential candidates. And it’s a huge sort of feather in their cap. I mean, it’ll excite their members. And as we said, they haven’t necessarily have much to be excited about in recent years in terms of their electoral success. So it will excite their members, it will excite donors and it’ll draw a ton of news. So, I mean, this is why one of the larger parties in recent and recent history, because just because of that. And I mean, if you remember back in the day they used to routinely get presidential candidates that Rick Perry, Chris Christie, all kinds of people. And recently they haven’t gotten as many. And so this will be I think this will be a very exciting convention.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> All that sounds really great for the state party leaders. Maybe not so great, though, for the California Republican House members in Orange County who have really tried to avoid anything having to do with Trump for the last few years. This convention in Anaheim, it’s happening two blocks from Michelle Steele’s district. What’s the outlook for for those kind of members with such a big circus coming to town?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Michelle Steel is in a little bit of a different spot because her husband is Shawn Steel and he’s California’s Republican National Committeeman. So, you know, when Trump arrived in California, they’ve greeted him on the tarmac. So that’s a little bit of a different case. But for some of these other people, like Scott Baugh who is running for that open Katie Porter seat and that’s a very, very tight district. I would be shocked if you saw him anywhere in the county, in southern California, anywhere near this thing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. All right. Seema Mehta rom The L.A. Times, thanks so much.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Thanks Seema.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Seema Mehta:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> All right. We’re going to take a short break now. And when we come back, we listened in on a conversation of voters in one of California’s largest cities about the politics of homelessness. And what we heard might surprise you. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer here with Guy Marzorati. And we’re going to shift gears right now. And, you know, there’s mayors in San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose are going to be facing reelection next year. You know, we’re never that far from another election. And top of mind for a lot of voters is homelessness and encampments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And earlier this week, we got to be flies on the wall as a group of voters in San Jose participated in a focus group conversation about homelessness and the cost of housing. And Scott, this is like you mentioned, such a big issue for mayors facing reelection in 2024. It routinely comes up on polls as a top issue for voters all over California. So we wanted to hear from a few of those voters in San Jose, as we’ve seen a lot of the conversation around the response to homelessness shift from a conversation about money, about funding to now you’re seeing a lot of, you know, switching more towards kind of a law enforcement response. These encampment bans that are popping up in a lot of major cities in San Diego, one went into effect on Monday. Just today, San Jose’s mayor introduced a proposal to ban encampments around schools. So it’s definitely you know, the conversation is shifting in the political sense as we get closer to when a lot of these mayors are going to have to go back before voters and presumably show some results.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, And of course, Governor Newsom has also been very vocal about this. He’s done press conferences in San Francisco, wanted to clean up the all the encampments under like freeway on ramps and off ramps. And so, as you said, we wanted to get these voters together and we reached out to a organization that does a lot of this on issues, David Binder Research. And we found a handful of folks and tell us why focus groups are better than or not better than but different from polls. I mean, polls are very useful.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Something we wanted to try out as kind of another reporting, you know, tool in our tool kit, so to speak. I think polling you get a sense from voters about maybe what issues are on their minds, what issues they’re hearing about. And you do routinely see homelessness as a top issue. But to hear actually voters talk through what kind of solutions they’d like to see, how, you know, when they say it’s a problem, how it’s actually, you know, affecting their life or, you know, how they’re thinking about it in a policy sense was interesting. And in a focus group, you are getting, you know, a bunch of people together kind of sounding off of each other. It’s not you know, we often do the man on the street, woman on the street. VOX You go up, ask someone a question, they’re not prepared for it. They’re, you know, maybe they give you 30 seconds. This was, you know, hour and a half of really just talking about housing affordability and homelessness in San Jose. And it started really with a discussion about, you know, folks entering homelessness, people who are experiencing homelessness in the community. You know, how does that process come about?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I was a little bit surprised off the bat that we didn’t hear a lot of the myths that you often hear about homelessness. These, you know, oh, it’s warm in California. Oh, you know, the services that are offered are a magnet. You didn’t hear a lot of that. And I think this, you know, excerpt kind of speaks to that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Focus group excerpt:\u003c/b> I think housing is the problem. It’s expensive. To maintain an apartment or I mean, not only do you have your rent, but the utilities here are ridiculously high.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So that was the first thing you heard ‘I think housing is the problem’ and you’ve seen that. I mean, I would point folks to this fascinating UCSF study that came out a few weeks ago that found 90% of people experiencing homelessness in California were living in California, two thirds of them born in California. So this is it’s not someone else’s problem.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And, you know, one of the things that came up during the conversation earlier this week with these voters, and we should say was a cross-section of voters from all over San Jose and different backgrounds, different kinds of professions. And one person was was unemployed. You know, a lot of discussion about, you know, maybe it would be smarter rather than trying to solve homelessness to prevent it. You know, if you can if you can keep people and so many people are living on the edge, they’re one disaster away from being evicted or not being able to pay the rent. And, you know, these folks really thought that through.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Totally, and I think that prevention angle is interesting because we have seen there was a study out today or this week about Santa Clara County and the effects, the positive effects that homelessness prevention have had in terms of, you know, cash assistance or, you know, eviction protections, just an amount of money that may seem small that can prevent someone from falling into homelessness. Because another thing that, you know, this UCSF study pointed out was the time span people often have when they find out they’re evicted or find out they have to leave a family members house is really short. It could be one day, three days, and you have to totally plan your life is really difficult. But from a political standpoint, there’s something about prevention that it’s not seen. Right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It’s the problem that didn’t happen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Right. Exactly. And I think that’s why we get to these discussions about encampments that you have seen politicians to turn to as far as making a show of clearing encampments. Another thing I, you know, that came up pretty early was the solutions part of this and to what extent these voters who may identify homelessness as a problem actually want to take part in a solution. And this often comes about in the context of would you like to see either temporary housing, affordable permanent housing built in your neighborhood? And we heard a lot of the same things that you hear anecdotally. There’s going to be, you know, crime. I’m worried about that. There’s going to be, you know, graffiti, debris. I’m worried about that. My property values are going to go down. And we’ve seen this in San Jose. I’ve done some reporting about temporary housing there and how a lot of the concerns don’t come to pass ultimately. But that was prevalent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And, you know, we saw here in San Francisco, you know, very liberal city by and large when that navigation center was on on the books as a possible, you know, place to be cited down in South Beach, along the waterfront. A lot of criticism, huge numbers of people coming out to protest that it’s been up and running. And, you know, as I as we’ve reported from our housing desk, yeah, like you said, a lot of those problems have not come to pass. Most of them have not come to pass. You know, and I was surprised some people in this group, one person in particular even said, look, I’ve got two spare bedrooms in my house. You know, if we could somehow, you know, sort of clear people ahead of time, I’d be willing to rent my place out. Now, You know, I don’t know that if that would actually come to pass when push came to shove. But I think you did hear among these folks is some real compassion, you know, in wanting to solve the problem, not just punish folks who are experiencing homelessness.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And I think here’s where the turn happened, is when it started to be phrased as, okay, you’re upset about encampments in your neighborhood. What if these temporary housing or shelters that were built, if that was framed as an alternative to the encampments that you’re seeing when that idea was thrown out, when that message was thrown out, you heard a kind of change in the tone in the room.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Focus group excerpt:\u003c/strong> “I’d say yes, because it’s better than having tents everywhere. They have to keep them clean. And, you know, there have to be rules, you know, with it…But yeah, if they move them from the tents in the neighborhood to the temporary housing in the neighborhood, that helps your property value.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And I think there’s your messaging challenge for whether it’s London Breed, Matt Mahan, Todd, Gloria, all these mayors, in getting this housing built — framing it as, look, there are people experiencing homelessness in our community. They can be living in encampments or they can be in temporary housing. That kind of tradeoff might be more palatable for voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, And also, people talked about motels, hotel rooms that are vacant, you know, even tiny homes. I mean, it’s interesting because a number of these folks said, well, I don’t listen to the news. But they certainly seemed informed. I mean, they knew some of the intricacies of some of the policies that Mayor Mahan has been talking about down there in San Jose and, you know, very open to many things. But, of course, you know, one of the problems is just that it’s so expensive to build affordable housing. And where are you going to put like a sanctioned, you know, sort of\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> RV encampment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, exactly. You know, you see that kind of thing proposed and, you know, there’s organized and not so organized protests.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> And as I mentioned, the latest policy Mahan is putting forward that he announced on Thursday with a councilmember, a more progressive councilmember he often spars with is this idea of an encampment ban. One rolled out in San Diego as well. I know you’ve been following in San Francisco ongoing litigation around the idea of clearing encampments. And this was raised, you know, in the conversation with voters. And I was surprised how many of them were pretty honest in viewing this as not a real true solution and more of a Band-Aid.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Focus group excerpt:\u003c/strong> “\u003ci>Should the homeless encampments be cleaned out or it’s like, wait, what do you think? You all named a couple of services that… \u003c/i>‘Cleaned up, not out. \u003ci>Cleaned up not out?\u003c/i> Yeah, I mean. Where are they going to go?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So that was interesting to hear voters kind of identify that as not really a true solution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And of course, you know, San Francisco spends a lot of money. The state is, you know, spending a lot of money, at least when the state was flush with a big budget surplus. And now we’re coming into leaner times, you know, city budgets, county budgets, the state budget, there’s less money to go around. And so it’s going to be interesting to see like some of these programs that did get some traction, for example, during the pandemic project, Homekey, that sort of thing. What happens to those? And can they build on some of the successes that they’ve had? And how are voters either, you know, in here in the Bay Area and elsewhere are going to react?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So what does this all mean for 2024? For one thing I’m really interested in following is to what extent do concerns about homelessness, so something you’d identify in a poll as a top issue actually translate into people becoming activated or feeling like, this is my issue and how I vote in a mayoral race is going to be really hinge on how this issue improves or doesn’t. And what we heard a lot of was people just feeling dispirited, people feeling, feeling defeated. It wasn’t that sense of I’m going to march in the streets about this. It’s you know, I think this cut kind of sums up a lot of what we heard from voters:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Focus group excerpt: \u003c/b>“That’s kind of why it was sad to me because it is expensive to live here and we don’t know their circumstance, but there was kids that were clean and playing outside and and that’s how they live now, you know, and I wish there was a better solution, but it seems like it’s just a big problem right now.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> So you hear that, you know, I’m sad about it. It seems like a big problem. Does that translate into mayors getting voted out? That’s I think what what I’ll be interested in watching.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, exactly. And we’re going to find that out probably sooner rather than later. As you said at the top, we said three elections coming up for mayor in San Jose, San Francisco,\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> San Diego.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So we’ll get some answers. All right. Well, that’s going to do it for this edition of Political Breakdown. It’s a production of KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Our engineer today is Jim Bennett. For more politics coverage from KQED subscribe to our newsletter at KQED.org/newsletters. I’m Guy Marzorati.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And I’m Scott Shafer. Thanks so much for listening. We’ll see you next time, everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11957359/trumps-california-advantage-and-encampment-politics",
"authors": [
"255",
"227"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_22235"
],
"featImg": "news_11957369",
"label": "source_news_11957359"
},
"news_11956724": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11956724",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11956724",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1690507537000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1690507537,
"format": "audio",
"title": "School Board Clashes and a Look Inside Newsom's San Quentin Reforms",
"headTitle": "School Board Clashes and a Look Inside Newsom’s San Quentin Reforms | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott and Marisa discuss Governor Gavin Newsom’s plan to reform San Quentin State Prison \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">— and Scott shares what inmates are saying about it\u003c/span>. Then, Los Angeles Times reporter Mackenzie Mays joins to discuss school board fights in Southern California that have caught the attention of Newsom and other state officials.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, everybody. From KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos on today’s show: schools and prisons. L.A. Times reporter Mackenzie Mays joins us to talk about how conservative members of school boards and parts of California are challenging state mandates and curriculum on issues like LGBTQ history and sex education. Even booting out the state school superintendent from a Southern California school board meeting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, exactly. And Marisa, I want to start, I think with the prison part of that Governor Newsom’s plan to transform San Quentin Prison into what he likes to call the California model. It’s rehabilitation for prisoners who will eventually be released, which is, you know, the vast majority of inmates. They will be paroled at some point. And I took a tour of the prison yesterday to learn more about the governor’s plan, which is really inspired by how Norway and other Scandinavian countries manage crime and punishment, less emphasis on punishments, more attention to preparing prisoners for life on the outside.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And I mean, since he rolled that out, Scott, there’s been some criticism about the lack of details in the plan. But at this tour, you were with the warden and Sacramento mayor, Darrell Steinberg, who’s actually advising the governor on all of this. What did you hear from them? What did you see?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, obviously, the both the warden and Steinberg are embracing this in a big way. And, you know, let’s face it, San Quentin has already been doing they’re really an outlier in the corrections system. They’ve been doing a lot of programing there for many, many years. But this is really an expansion of that. And yeah, you’re right, there is some criticism on the lack of details. But, you know, Steinberg says really what we’re talking about here is pretty basic, a fundamental change in the way that personnel, starting with correctional officers, are trained and how they are recruited and retained. And, you know, that is that is a big issue, Marisa. You know, obviously, the the corrections officers don’t all think about sitting down and having coffee with prisoners, which is exactly what they’re envisioning. You know, they’re talking about having more interaction, shaking hands, playing pickleball with the with these with these men, which is kind of what they do in Norway and some of these Scandinavian countries.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, honestly, like you and I have both covered a lot of prisons and criminal justice over the years. We’ve covered a lot of the reforms that have happened on the outside of prisons. And I actually kind of think we’ll get into the, you know, money they need to spend on infrastructure and all of that and programs. But to me, the culture change here seems like really the nub of this. And probably the most challenging part. I mean, we’ve seen this on the outside with the way a lot of police departments have really pushed back against reforms that voters have passed and kind of refused to enact them in some ways. Right. In terms of like when we talk about Prop 47 and this feeling of like, oh, well, you know, it’s a misdemeanor, I don’t even want to arrest someone. And I’ve been doing a lot of reporting, you know, Scott, around juvenile justice and the problems that plagued those state facilities. You know, a lot of those officers are now being hired by this, the adult system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Do you think that’s a good thing? I mean, based on the way they have, you know, been in their jobs, is that are they going to be down with this new approach?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, you would think it would actually make sense because our juvenile system has been, at least on paper, more based towards rehabilitation than punishment. But the story that we’ve been hearing in recent months about the drug use, the drug furnishing by officers, you know, a lot of these problems, I think, is it it just speaks to the challenges there. And so that’s something I’ll be watching. But as we noted, there’s also been criticisms about sort of the like mechanics of doing this. What have you heard from lawmakers?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Of course, the governor’s been pushing this and he’s got a pretty tight timeline. And he got the legislature to approve $360 million. And this is the first phase of what they’re going to do. They’re going to knock down an old furniture factory that inmates used to work in at San Quentin, replace it with what they’re describing as a campus kind of a situation for more classrooms. The culture change. It applies not only to the corrections officers but also to the the men who are they’re incarcerated. And I talked to one of those guys, Juan Haines, who’s been incarcerated for 27 years. He’s actually one of the editors for the San Quentin News, which is an award winning newspaper that I went into the newsroom, talked with him and some of the other guys. And, you know, here’s you know, I asked him to put on his journalist’s hat and, you know, what is he skeptical about when he hears this plan?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Juan Haines:\u003c/strong> I’m skeptical about the people that are actually going to be pushing the buttons. I’m skeptical about California’s overcrowded prisons and I’m skeptical over buy in from both sides. I’ve talked to a lot of correctional officers that really love this idea. And then there’s some that don’t.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, for sure. And, you know, one of the things that Steinberg talked about is that corrections often this is a hard job for corrections officers, you know, and the idea of transforming the job into not only social work, but more and more human, more humane is something that he thinks that the guards, the peace officers there will. The corrections officers will embrace because they’ll feel better about what they do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that was an argument Jerry Brown made in changing some of the way that we program in prisons, giving more opportunities for rehabilitation. I mean, but also interestingly, one, Haynes mentioned both sides, and I think this is also going to require buy in from prisoners, folks who, you know, are like it takes all sides. And I think if you don’t have that and I think that’ll require, again, the trust building that trust with folks. But beyond all this, Scott, I mean, we got to talk about the politics, this political breakdown. You know, the governor seems to maybe have his eyes on higher office outside of California, as you may have heard on this show and elsewhere.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> He has sub-zero interest in that, come on Marisa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Subzero in the White House. But truthfully, I mean, if this were successful, it would certainly be something you could run on on a national platform. What do you think he’s looking at? Like, what are the politics here, both immediate but more long term for the governor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, he has set this timeline of 2025. And it was you know, we were asking Steinberg like, okay, what does that mean? January 20, 25, December 2025, You know, it was you know, Steinberg knows that this is really squishy. He said August 4th, you know, and just pulling a number. And I said, oh, is the ribbon cutting going to be in Iowa? You know, because clearly this is the kind of big idea that Newsom loves to talk about and run on. I mean, criminal justice and crime are things that, you know, Democrats at the moment are a little bit on their their back heels on their a little bit on the defensive. And I think he sees this as the kind of thing that will appeal to that maybe broad middle of voters who want to see rules. They want to see public safety and sell this as good for public safety, because as these folks get out of prison and go into the community, if they’re not prepared to take jobs, what are they going to do? They’re going to turn to crime again because they won’t have many alternatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. And I mean, we like I said, we’ve done a lot of work to try, you know, to make that reentry smoother. But I think anything you do on the front end when folks are behind bars is going to help greatly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, and I would say the front end is really high school. Well, you know, yeah, you know, there are there are legislators, of course, like Reggie Jones Sawyer, who wants to take some of these elusive savings from closing prisons and plow it into the front end, the real front end, which is before they get in trouble. But, you know, job programs, violence prevention, that kind of thing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah and I think we should say I mean, I do think there’s been a lot of concern, both driven by both politics and just like what people are actually experiencing around crime. But if you look at overall crime rates compared to 30 years ago, they are still so low. We’ve seen the state shutter already, a couple of prisons more in the pipeline to shut down. They have ended a lot of contracts with private prison operators. And so I think, all told, you know, this is part of a trend we’ve seen in California. You know, I think there’s an open question as to whether reimagining a 150 year old prison is the best way. Should we just be starting from scratch?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, exactly. And if you look at death row, those there’s still 550 or so condemned inmates there. They’re gradually moving them out to other maximum security prisons. And you know what? They’re not going to just knock that down. I mean, maybe that would be the best thing to do. But they’re not. They’re going to make some revisions to it. But certainly housing and space in general is an opportunity, but also a huge challenge, not just at San Quentin, but, you know, across the system. And so there are those who say, well, geez, maybe there’s something better to to use this money in different ways, spread it out across different institutions. You know, just about 5% of all the people who are incarcerated in California are at San Quentin. And I think what we’re going to see is sort of a quote unquote, cream of the crop come to San Quentin, those who really are motivated to change, to learn skills and so on. And those who aren’t are going to go to some of these other prisons that don’t have these programs, or at least not in the numbers that they’ve had them at Quentin for so long.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. All right. Well, we will keep watching that. I know you will and I will as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, absolutely. All right. We’re going to take a short break. And when we return, we’re going to be joined by L.A. Times reporter Mackenzie Mays. She’s been covering the politics around LGBTQ issues and other cultural issues that are roiling local school districts in California. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marisa Lagos. And we’re going to turn to the fights over curriculum and how to treat students who identify as transgender that have roiled local school districts and captured the attention of state officials like Governor Gavin Newsom and state Superintendent Tony Thurmond. Los Angeles Times, state government and politics reporter Mackenzie Mays has been covering these dustups and she joins us now from Sacramento. Hey, Mackenzie.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Hey, how are you?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Doing well. So, you know, we’ve been hearing about these kinds of issues really for almost years, but it’s mostly been in red states like Florida and Texas, you know, limiting what teachers can say, that kind of thing. Parental rights fights. It seems like this is relatively new to California. Is that is that your take?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I would say that it feels new in California because it’s one of the only pathways to sort of power over policy that Republicans have. Right. They can’t get policy change in either house of the state legislature. As you know, we have a governor who’s a Democrat. So we had foreseen that, you know, Republicans were trying to stack local school boards. And so depending on what city and what school they represent, that is a way that they can have some power over policy. So I think that’s why it feels so different in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you feel like any of this came out of the kind of parent anger we saw around COVID closures? Because it seems and mask mandates and all that because while this has become more of a right left issue, I mean, that did galvanize a lot of parents kind of across the political spectrum.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Yeah, definitely. I mean, I sort of wrote about this last year where we knew that, you know, they they were promising a quote unquote, red wave for school boards in California. We didn’t see that, you know, but in the communities where it did happen, it’s, you know, playing out in the ways that we’re seeing now in Temecula and Chino. And that parental rights slogan is something that’s not happening in California but is like a right talking point across the nation. And I think it sprung out of out of COVID frustrations and school frustrations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And to what extent do you think this is being driven by religion? You know, conservative churches that have supported harsher policies around things like LGBTQ rights? Are they weighing in in this way with school districts as well?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, actually, I you know, I’ve covered a lot of school board meetings in my in my day. I’ve covered them in Fresno and in the South. And even for me, watching the meeting in Temecula was really something. You know, I had said there was lots of God and lots of gabble. You know, there were Bible scriptures quoted there. You know, God came up a lot like it’s not really something that anyone’s trying to hide. Now, whether or not they’re they’re doing that in schools. Like, I think they understand the rules about church and state and all of that. But this is a board meeting where they can say other things. And I actually watched a sermon in a conservative church in Temecula afterward, and they invited some of the school board members to, you know, the sermon. And, you know, it is a church and only two of the three could come, otherwise they would violate —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> The Brown Act! That’s so interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah. It’s getting it’s getting pretty you know, it’s just. Yeah, that that’s safe to say for sure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So let’s let’s talk about Temecula. You were down there. This is a school board. We should mention that I believe three the three majority members that are kind of proposing and supporting a lot of these controversial things were, I think, recruited by a local pastor to run. And they started off in the spring by banning critical race theory. Was that did that even get on your radar or was that kind of more of a local conversation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I mean, the CRT thing has been on my radar for a while and it gets really confusing because often what some opponents say is CRT isn’t even actually that right. So it gets really tricky about what sort of history lessons they want to teach and what they don’t. But it’s pretty own brand we see, you know, it didn’t take long for us to go from textbooks to in another city. It was about transgender and youth rights. And CRT sort of falls right in there with those topics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Another big skirmish down in Temecula, of course, was over gay rights hero Harvey Milk in school lessons and Governor Newsom’s reaction to that. The school district was calling milk a pedophile, which is ridiculous. And the governor reacted strongly, said he’s going to send textbooks down there. Talk about how that played out, how the governor responded and where things are now.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think, you know, it’s pretty rare in California for a governor to insert himself, I guess, in a local school board. If you we if you talk to school board officials across the state and teachers, all you hear about is local control because California is so big. So California sets the laws and the standards and everybody’s pretty up front about how hard it is to actually regulate and enforce those. So to see a governor say, “You can’t do this, and if you do this, I’m going to make sure that I fine you” was really interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And he had a lot of supporters saying, yes, like you need to step in because they’re not doing the right thing. But he also had a lot of critics saying, we don’t know if you’re doing this because it’s sound policy or if it’s better for your political profile because, you know, that’s the side you want to be on in the culture wars, if you’re Newsom, right? and so I think, you know, we’re all waiting to see how it will play out. There’s a lot of questions about like, okay, what happens when this happens again? You know, will we see that same sort of attention that some people thought was outsized in this situation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What I mean, we’re reading about this from here. We talked about this last week on the show, but we should explain to folks that essentially the school board tried to reject a state approved curriculum that included some supplemental materials, mentioning Harvey Milk. They sort of since backed off. What is your sense, though? Like is this is this splitting the community down there that is a relatively purple district, I believe, or is it are people there supportive of it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Well, I mean, we know there were enough people there to vote the board members and that support it, and that’s a majority of the board. So we know that. But I also talk to parents, you know, this this meeting went on for like 9 hours and went past midnight. And there were parents who opposed it, too, and teachers, too. And some of the folks that oppose the conservative majority and support the Harvey Milk text say that a lot of the drama that they’re seeing at school board meetings is like outside agitators, they call them. They’re like, they’re not parents, they’re not even voters. They’re just sort of glomming on to this big sort of conservative issue without really having a stake in the school board, which is really interesting and all sorts of things that have like little to do with schools kept coming up at the school board meeting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I thought it was really interesting. Like there’s a like sex trafficking would come up a few times in that movie that’s a big on like right wing talking point right now. You know, the just certain things that usually, you know, the one of the —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> There’s a media bubble that a lot of people live in that not everybody understands what they’re talking about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Which silo were you in?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Yeah. I mean, one of the one of the parents who is actually hoping to work on a recall effort to recall the majority conservative majority on the board, said that their slogan is make school board, make school board meetings boring again. Okay. They used to be really boring about budgets and stuff, and now they’ve become something else.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, you know, of course, Governor Newsom, before all this happened, has been very critical of states like Florida and especially Governor Ron DeSantis with the, you know, don’t say gay bill and some of the other things he’s doing down there around transgender rights. And, you know, now we’re hearing from Temecula and Chino that, hey, this is, you know, the governor interfering with local control. So how is what Newsom is doing different from what DeSantis is doing and got criticized for by Newsom?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I actually I talked to an attorney who compared the two, and I’m sure Newsom does not like ever being compared to DeSantis. As we know, they’re sort of like arch nemeses and just constant rivals. But to Newsom’s point, he would say, you know, the school board’s breaking the law. We have laws that say you must teach LGBT history. We have laws about comprehensive sex ed, laws about ethnic studies. I mean, California has all of the laws already when it comes to textbooks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so he could say, you know, this isn’t the same because what DeSantis is doing is sort of the opposite and some would argue is illegal over that way, too, because, you know, depending on what you’re allowing a teacher to teach or a school board official to push, so and I talked to his office and they said, you know, just because we believe in local control and deferring to communities about what’s best for them doesn’t mean you can break the law. You know, those are two different things, is what they say.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you think, though, that like there are potential pitfalls for Democrats for pushing back because like we’re talking about local control? I mean, that is something that has been championed to some extent by both kind of wings of of the political system here in California as being important. Right. That you want people to have that buy-in. So do you feel like there’s either political or practical kind of pitfalls when the state tries to come in and push these things?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I think the potential pitfall and it’s something that’s come up in conversations a lot is what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. So like there are liberal school boards who have said, we don’t want to teach these texts. And it may be because they use a racial slur or something like that, but the texts are like, you know, otherwise literary, like, you know, all of us read them. And so I guess the pitfall could be, you know, will you be treating a district with different political views the same way? I mean, I don’t know if that would be violating. You know, they could pick a different book and still stay in the standards. They just might not want one book. And that’s ultimately actually what Temecula ended up doing. You know, they are following the law now. They just didn’t choose the Harvey Milk book after all.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer: \u003c/strong>Well, another issue in the culture wars bubbled up in Chino Valley School Board. That’s another school district in the Inland Empire, this one in San Bernardino County. And the issue is not books, but transgender kids. Tell us about that, how it played out and you know why Tony Thurmond, the school superintendent, you know, decided to go down there and address them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> He won’t talk to any of us!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> When you see something like that happen, only a couple of days after something like this happened, you do start to think, wait a second, is there a pattern happening? But there the school board voted for like what they call a parental notification system. So if a kid is transgender or identifies in a way that they say is not on their birth certificate as far as the pronouns that they want to use a bathroom, that’s different from what they used to be using, they’re going to notify their parents. So the conservative majority on that school board and the parents that support it say parents should know everything about their kids. That’s their right. And then gay rights advocates say this is really dangerous because the very kids that may not tell their parents might not feel safe and not be in homes where they feel safe to do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so you’re taking away from them this like sort of safe haven that they think a school should be by what they say would be outing them against their will. And so another potential pitfalls. Like everybody’s like, where’s Gavin on this? You know, it’s kind of hard for the governor to choose to be involved in one and not in this one. And we do know that that state lawmakers have already said, hey, we’re going to we’re going to work on something, write up a bill to to make sure that this doesn’t happen, because right now that that policy is approved and it’s, you know, that’s in play there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Before we talk, I do want to talk about Tony Thurmond, but you mention Newsom. And I do think that I mean, this feels like a stickier issue for him. I think it was very easy for him to come out swinging when Harvey Milk was accused of being a pedophile. But parental notification is not quite as clean of a line for for liberals, I would imagine.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, it’s all about the language, too. Parental notification, parental rights know, that’s sort of a cultural term that’s really hard for anybody to disagree with. It’s more one of those things that you need to drill down and understand what somebody means when they say that because it’s such an umbrella term, it’s like who would be anti-parent, you know, But you have to sort of get to what really what they mean behind that, I guess.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Well, we have seen the legislature obviously getting activated on this. And, you know, the school board association actually seemed to take Temecula side on that school book issue. We’ve got others, you know, warning about state overreach. Corey Jackson, a freshman legislator from down that way, has got a bill coming up around all this. Like where how do you see this shaking out in the legislature? And do we see more of those same fault lines that Marisa and you just talked about regarding like books versus parental notification?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> No. I mean, everyone I’ve talked to about the textbook law, at least, is like that. That bill is good as gold. So that bill before was a flop. I had talked to Jackson about it. It didn’t have support from important people like CTA or CCPA because it was became a local control issue. But the governors sort of swooped in and has made it his bill in a way, and immediately had tacked on support from leadership in the legislature. So everyone’s like, Yeah, that’s going to happen. There’s not really going to be a I don’t think there’s going to be a big divide there. And as you know, we have, you know, supermajorities of Democrats in the legislature. We’ll have to wait to see what the other issue, what the other bill looks like and if the old, you know, stand up against some, I guess, tougher criticism than this textbook bill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I know we just have you for a few more minutes, Mackenzie. I do want to ask the state superintendent, Tony Thurmond kind of shouted down out of that Chino Valley School board meeting. He says he was kicked out. It looked like he was kind of asked to leave maybe after his public comment. But I made a joke about Thurmond. I mean, he has not been super accessible, I think, to the press or the public in a lot of ways. Do you think he’s trying to kind of burnishes his credentials politically with all of this and and what role does he actually have a superintendent?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I mean, people in Sacramento definitely viewed it that way. He’s running for governor. Well, he had just announced that he, you know, is considering a run for governor and that he had opened a committee. So to see him, you know, stand up and talk in public. You know, he signed up as just like sort of like a layman, like a normal member of the public. It’s really kind of wild to see the state superintendent of all the schools in California just sort of show up there instead of like have you know, it kind of tells me that they weren’t working together, something on that issue. He was quick to tweet about it afterward and is angry with that district. And he did say he was ejected. And I watched the tape and I saw that police were talking to him at the podium afterward. But I also just saw just a few minutes ago that the school district put out a statement saying that that he wasn’t ejected. And now they’re angry with him for saying that he was.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> ‘We wish he’d kept talking.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s hard to it’s hard not to see, you know, it through a political lens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, of course. And of course, all this, you know, if you look at the broader politics, it’s playing out at a time that the legislature is trying to repeal the Prop eight, which passed in 2008 banning same sex marriage, Of course, that’s already been resolved through the courts. So it’s kind of symbolic. But, you know, we also have, you know, talk about repealing the travel ban to states which have anti LGBTQ politics and laws. So what do you make of the fact that all of this is coming up right now? I mean, is this just part is this in some way tied to 2024, do you think?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I think that it’s that local piece again, I think because, I mean, California has the strongest LGBT rights and protections, like you just mentioned as a state, right. But I think to see this, it’s because it’s kind of the only way we can see them wedge through. Like maybe you might see this on a city council in a certain city or a board, a supes or something. But usually, you know, this is kind of as hyperlocal as it gets. And so I think that’s where we’re that’s sort of the only way it pokes through in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Final question before we let you go. I mean, the president has even been talking about this. We’ve seen him kind of linking the abortion SCOTUS decision and MAGA extremists to book bans. I know there’s a civil rights investigation by the Department of Education into whether Texas school district’s sweeping removal of LGBT themed books constitutes discrimination. We always talk about California leading the nation, are we are we going to be leaders here Mackenzie? What do we what do we expect in the coming months and in the next year on all of this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> On the textbook situation, I mean, we we sort of already are in a lot of ways. I think that’s part of the criticism too, is we already have the most stringent education standards for schools as far as diversity and inclusion goes. So I guess, you know, the governor has to follow through on this law, obviously, and it’ll probably be the strictest sort of form of regulation we’ve seen. And again, it will put California as sort of the antithesis of these red states, which is something we see Newsom do a lot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And, of course, all this is happening in during summer break. Right? Right. So the kids aren’t even in school and they’re all arguing about the kids. All right. Mackenzie Mays from the Los Angeles Times, thank you so much for joining us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 5945,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 70
},
"modified": 1700874557,
"excerpt": "Clashes Over Curriculum and Transgender Students in Temecula and Chino Valley",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Clashes Over Curriculum and Transgender Students in Temecula and Chino Valley",
"title": "School Board Clashes and a Look Inside Newsom's San Quentin Reforms | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "School Board Clashes and a Look Inside Newsom's San Quentin Reforms",
"datePublished": "2023-07-27T18:25:37-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-11-24T17:09:17-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "school-board-clashes-and-a-look-inside-newsoms-san-quentin-reforms",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC6712376363.mp3",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11956724/school-board-clashes-and-a-look-inside-newsoms-san-quentin-reforms",
"audioDuration": 1786000,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott and Marisa discuss Governor Gavin Newsom’s plan to reform San Quentin State Prison \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">— and Scott shares what inmates are saying about it\u003c/span>. Then, Los Angeles Times reporter Mackenzie Mays joins to discuss school board fights in Southern California that have caught the attention of Newsom and other state officials.\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, everybody. From KQED Public Radio, it’s Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> And I’m Marisa Lagos on today’s show: schools and prisons. L.A. Times reporter Mackenzie Mays joins us to talk about how conservative members of school boards and parts of California are challenging state mandates and curriculum on issues like LGBTQ history and sex education. Even booting out the state school superintendent from a Southern California school board meeting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, exactly. And Marisa, I want to start, I think with the prison part of that Governor Newsom’s plan to transform San Quentin Prison into what he likes to call the California model. It’s rehabilitation for prisoners who will eventually be released, which is, you know, the vast majority of inmates. They will be paroled at some point. And I took a tour of the prison yesterday to learn more about the governor’s plan, which is really inspired by how Norway and other Scandinavian countries manage crime and punishment, less emphasis on punishments, more attention to preparing prisoners for life on the outside.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. And I mean, since he rolled that out, Scott, there’s been some criticism about the lack of details in the plan. But at this tour, you were with the warden and Sacramento mayor, Darrell Steinberg, who’s actually advising the governor on all of this. What did you hear from them? What did you see?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, obviously, the both the warden and Steinberg are embracing this in a big way. And, you know, let’s face it, San Quentin has already been doing they’re really an outlier in the corrections system. They’ve been doing a lot of programing there for many, many years. But this is really an expansion of that. And yeah, you’re right, there is some criticism on the lack of details. But, you know, Steinberg says really what we’re talking about here is pretty basic, a fundamental change in the way that personnel, starting with correctional officers, are trained and how they are recruited and retained. And, you know, that is that is a big issue, Marisa. You know, obviously, the the corrections officers don’t all think about sitting down and having coffee with prisoners, which is exactly what they’re envisioning. You know, they’re talking about having more interaction, shaking hands, playing pickleball with the with these with these men, which is kind of what they do in Norway and some of these Scandinavian countries.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, honestly, like you and I have both covered a lot of prisons and criminal justice over the years. We’ve covered a lot of the reforms that have happened on the outside of prisons. And I actually kind of think we’ll get into the, you know, money they need to spend on infrastructure and all of that and programs. But to me, the culture change here seems like really the nub of this. And probably the most challenging part. I mean, we’ve seen this on the outside with the way a lot of police departments have really pushed back against reforms that voters have passed and kind of refused to enact them in some ways. Right. In terms of like when we talk about Prop 47 and this feeling of like, oh, well, you know, it’s a misdemeanor, I don’t even want to arrest someone. And I’ve been doing a lot of reporting, you know, Scott, around juvenile justice and the problems that plagued those state facilities. You know, a lot of those officers are now being hired by this, the adult system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Do you think that’s a good thing? I mean, based on the way they have, you know, been in their jobs, is that are they going to be down with this new approach?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> I mean, you would think it would actually make sense because our juvenile system has been, at least on paper, more based towards rehabilitation than punishment. But the story that we’ve been hearing in recent months about the drug use, the drug furnishing by officers, you know, a lot of these problems, I think, is it it just speaks to the challenges there. And so that’s something I’ll be watching. But as we noted, there’s also been criticisms about sort of the like mechanics of doing this. What have you heard from lawmakers?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Of course, the governor’s been pushing this and he’s got a pretty tight timeline. And he got the legislature to approve $360 million. And this is the first phase of what they’re going to do. They’re going to knock down an old furniture factory that inmates used to work in at San Quentin, replace it with what they’re describing as a campus kind of a situation for more classrooms. The culture change. It applies not only to the corrections officers but also to the the men who are they’re incarcerated. And I talked to one of those guys, Juan Haines, who’s been incarcerated for 27 years. He’s actually one of the editors for the San Quentin News, which is an award winning newspaper that I went into the newsroom, talked with him and some of the other guys. And, you know, here’s you know, I asked him to put on his journalist’s hat and, you know, what is he skeptical about when he hears this plan?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Juan Haines:\u003c/strong> I’m skeptical about the people that are actually going to be pushing the buttons. I’m skeptical about California’s overcrowded prisons and I’m skeptical over buy in from both sides. I’ve talked to a lot of correctional officers that really love this idea. And then there’s some that don’t.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, for sure. And, you know, one of the things that Steinberg talked about is that corrections often this is a hard job for corrections officers, you know, and the idea of transforming the job into not only social work, but more and more human, more humane is something that he thinks that the guards, the peace officers there will. The corrections officers will embrace because they’ll feel better about what they do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that was an argument Jerry Brown made in changing some of the way that we program in prisons, giving more opportunities for rehabilitation. I mean, but also interestingly, one, Haynes mentioned both sides, and I think this is also going to require buy in from prisoners, folks who, you know, are like it takes all sides. And I think if you don’t have that and I think that’ll require, again, the trust building that trust with folks. But beyond all this, Scott, I mean, we got to talk about the politics, this political breakdown. You know, the governor seems to maybe have his eyes on higher office outside of California, as you may have heard on this show and elsewhere.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> He has sub-zero interest in that, come on Marisa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Subzero in the White House. But truthfully, I mean, if this were successful, it would certainly be something you could run on on a national platform. What do you think he’s looking at? Like, what are the politics here, both immediate but more long term for the governor?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, he has set this timeline of 2025. And it was you know, we were asking Steinberg like, okay, what does that mean? January 20, 25, December 2025, You know, it was you know, Steinberg knows that this is really squishy. He said August 4th, you know, and just pulling a number. And I said, oh, is the ribbon cutting going to be in Iowa? You know, because clearly this is the kind of big idea that Newsom loves to talk about and run on. I mean, criminal justice and crime are things that, you know, Democrats at the moment are a little bit on their their back heels on their a little bit on the defensive. And I think he sees this as the kind of thing that will appeal to that maybe broad middle of voters who want to see rules. They want to see public safety and sell this as good for public safety, because as these folks get out of prison and go into the community, if they’re not prepared to take jobs, what are they going to do? They’re going to turn to crime again because they won’t have many alternatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. And I mean, we like I said, we’ve done a lot of work to try, you know, to make that reentry smoother. But I think anything you do on the front end when folks are behind bars is going to help greatly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, and I would say the front end is really high school. Well, you know, yeah, you know, there are there are legislators, of course, like Reggie Jones Sawyer, who wants to take some of these elusive savings from closing prisons and plow it into the front end, the real front end, which is before they get in trouble. But, you know, job programs, violence prevention, that kind of thing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah and I think we should say I mean, I do think there’s been a lot of concern, both driven by both politics and just like what people are actually experiencing around crime. But if you look at overall crime rates compared to 30 years ago, they are still so low. We’ve seen the state shutter already, a couple of prisons more in the pipeline to shut down. They have ended a lot of contracts with private prison operators. And so I think, all told, you know, this is part of a trend we’ve seen in California. You know, I think there’s an open question as to whether reimagining a 150 year old prison is the best way. Should we just be starting from scratch?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, exactly. And if you look at death row, those there’s still 550 or so condemned inmates there. They’re gradually moving them out to other maximum security prisons. And you know what? They’re not going to just knock that down. I mean, maybe that would be the best thing to do. But they’re not. They’re going to make some revisions to it. But certainly housing and space in general is an opportunity, but also a huge challenge, not just at San Quentin, but, you know, across the system. And so there are those who say, well, geez, maybe there’s something better to to use this money in different ways, spread it out across different institutions. You know, just about 5% of all the people who are incarcerated in California are at San Quentin. And I think what we’re going to see is sort of a quote unquote, cream of the crop come to San Quentin, those who really are motivated to change, to learn skills and so on. And those who aren’t are going to go to some of these other prisons that don’t have these programs, or at least not in the numbers that they’ve had them at Quentin for so long.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah. All right. Well, we will keep watching that. I know you will and I will as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, absolutely. All right. We’re going to take a short break. And when we return, we’re going to be joined by L.A. Times reporter Mackenzie Mays. She’s been covering the politics around LGBTQ issues and other cultural issues that are roiling local school districts in California. You’re listening to Political Breakdown from KQED Public Radio.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Welcome back to Political Breakdown. I’m Scott Shafer here with Marisa Lagos. And we’re going to turn to the fights over curriculum and how to treat students who identify as transgender that have roiled local school districts and captured the attention of state officials like Governor Gavin Newsom and state Superintendent Tony Thurmond. Los Angeles Times, state government and politics reporter Mackenzie Mays has been covering these dustups and she joins us now from Sacramento. Hey, Mackenzie.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Hey, how are you?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Doing well. So, you know, we’ve been hearing about these kinds of issues really for almost years, but it’s mostly been in red states like Florida and Texas, you know, limiting what teachers can say, that kind of thing. Parental rights fights. It seems like this is relatively new to California. Is that is that your take?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I would say that it feels new in California because it’s one of the only pathways to sort of power over policy that Republicans have. Right. They can’t get policy change in either house of the state legislature. As you know, we have a governor who’s a Democrat. So we had foreseen that, you know, Republicans were trying to stack local school boards. And so depending on what city and what school they represent, that is a way that they can have some power over policy. So I think that’s why it feels so different in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you feel like any of this came out of the kind of parent anger we saw around COVID closures? Because it seems and mask mandates and all that because while this has become more of a right left issue, I mean, that did galvanize a lot of parents kind of across the political spectrum.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Yeah, definitely. I mean, I sort of wrote about this last year where we knew that, you know, they they were promising a quote unquote, red wave for school boards in California. We didn’t see that, you know, but in the communities where it did happen, it’s, you know, playing out in the ways that we’re seeing now in Temecula and Chino. And that parental rights slogan is something that’s not happening in California but is like a right talking point across the nation. And I think it sprung out of out of COVID frustrations and school frustrations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And to what extent do you think this is being driven by religion? You know, conservative churches that have supported harsher policies around things like LGBTQ rights? Are they weighing in in this way with school districts as well?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, actually, I you know, I’ve covered a lot of school board meetings in my in my day. I’ve covered them in Fresno and in the South. And even for me, watching the meeting in Temecula was really something. You know, I had said there was lots of God and lots of gabble. You know, there were Bible scriptures quoted there. You know, God came up a lot like it’s not really something that anyone’s trying to hide. Now, whether or not they’re they’re doing that in schools. Like, I think they understand the rules about church and state and all of that. But this is a board meeting where they can say other things. And I actually watched a sermon in a conservative church in Temecula afterward, and they invited some of the school board members to, you know, the sermon. And, you know, it is a church and only two of the three could come, otherwise they would violate —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> The Brown Act! That’s so interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah. It’s getting it’s getting pretty you know, it’s just. Yeah, that that’s safe to say for sure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> So let’s let’s talk about Temecula. You were down there. This is a school board. We should mention that I believe three the three majority members that are kind of proposing and supporting a lot of these controversial things were, I think, recruited by a local pastor to run. And they started off in the spring by banning critical race theory. Was that did that even get on your radar or was that kind of more of a local conversation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I mean, the CRT thing has been on my radar for a while and it gets really confusing because often what some opponents say is CRT isn’t even actually that right. So it gets really tricky about what sort of history lessons they want to teach and what they don’t. But it’s pretty own brand we see, you know, it didn’t take long for us to go from textbooks to in another city. It was about transgender and youth rights. And CRT sort of falls right in there with those topics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Another big skirmish down in Temecula, of course, was over gay rights hero Harvey Milk in school lessons and Governor Newsom’s reaction to that. The school district was calling milk a pedophile, which is ridiculous. And the governor reacted strongly, said he’s going to send textbooks down there. Talk about how that played out, how the governor responded and where things are now.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think, you know, it’s pretty rare in California for a governor to insert himself, I guess, in a local school board. If you we if you talk to school board officials across the state and teachers, all you hear about is local control because California is so big. So California sets the laws and the standards and everybody’s pretty up front about how hard it is to actually regulate and enforce those. So to see a governor say, “You can’t do this, and if you do this, I’m going to make sure that I fine you” was really interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And he had a lot of supporters saying, yes, like you need to step in because they’re not doing the right thing. But he also had a lot of critics saying, we don’t know if you’re doing this because it’s sound policy or if it’s better for your political profile because, you know, that’s the side you want to be on in the culture wars, if you’re Newsom, right? and so I think, you know, we’re all waiting to see how it will play out. There’s a lot of questions about like, okay, what happens when this happens again? You know, will we see that same sort of attention that some people thought was outsized in this situation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> What I mean, we’re reading about this from here. We talked about this last week on the show, but we should explain to folks that essentially the school board tried to reject a state approved curriculum that included some supplemental materials, mentioning Harvey Milk. They sort of since backed off. What is your sense, though? Like is this is this splitting the community down there that is a relatively purple district, I believe, or is it are people there supportive of it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Well, I mean, we know there were enough people there to vote the board members and that support it, and that’s a majority of the board. So we know that. But I also talk to parents, you know, this this meeting went on for like 9 hours and went past midnight. And there were parents who opposed it, too, and teachers, too. And some of the folks that oppose the conservative majority and support the Harvey Milk text say that a lot of the drama that they’re seeing at school board meetings is like outside agitators, they call them. They’re like, they’re not parents, they’re not even voters. They’re just sort of glomming on to this big sort of conservative issue without really having a stake in the school board, which is really interesting and all sorts of things that have like little to do with schools kept coming up at the school board meeting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I thought it was really interesting. Like there’s a like sex trafficking would come up a few times in that movie that’s a big on like right wing talking point right now. You know, the just certain things that usually, you know, the one of the —\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> There’s a media bubble that a lot of people live in that not everybody understands what they’re talking about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Which silo were you in?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Yeah. I mean, one of the one of the parents who is actually hoping to work on a recall effort to recall the majority conservative majority on the board, said that their slogan is make school board, make school board meetings boring again. Okay. They used to be really boring about budgets and stuff, and now they’ve become something else.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, well, you know, of course, Governor Newsom, before all this happened, has been very critical of states like Florida and especially Governor Ron DeSantis with the, you know, don’t say gay bill and some of the other things he’s doing down there around transgender rights. And, you know, now we’re hearing from Temecula and Chino that, hey, this is, you know, the governor interfering with local control. So how is what Newsom is doing different from what DeSantis is doing and got criticized for by Newsom?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I actually I talked to an attorney who compared the two, and I’m sure Newsom does not like ever being compared to DeSantis. As we know, they’re sort of like arch nemeses and just constant rivals. But to Newsom’s point, he would say, you know, the school board’s breaking the law. We have laws that say you must teach LGBT history. We have laws about comprehensive sex ed, laws about ethnic studies. I mean, California has all of the laws already when it comes to textbooks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so he could say, you know, this isn’t the same because what DeSantis is doing is sort of the opposite and some would argue is illegal over that way, too, because, you know, depending on what you’re allowing a teacher to teach or a school board official to push, so and I talked to his office and they said, you know, just because we believe in local control and deferring to communities about what’s best for them doesn’t mean you can break the law. You know, those are two different things, is what they say.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Do you think, though, that like there are potential pitfalls for Democrats for pushing back because like we’re talking about local control? I mean, that is something that has been championed to some extent by both kind of wings of of the political system here in California as being important. Right. That you want people to have that buy-in. So do you feel like there’s either political or practical kind of pitfalls when the state tries to come in and push these things?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I think the potential pitfall and it’s something that’s come up in conversations a lot is what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. So like there are liberal school boards who have said, we don’t want to teach these texts. And it may be because they use a racial slur or something like that, but the texts are like, you know, otherwise literary, like, you know, all of us read them. And so I guess the pitfall could be, you know, will you be treating a district with different political views the same way? I mean, I don’t know if that would be violating. You know, they could pick a different book and still stay in the standards. They just might not want one book. And that’s ultimately actually what Temecula ended up doing. You know, they are following the law now. They just didn’t choose the Harvey Milk book after all.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer: \u003c/strong>Well, another issue in the culture wars bubbled up in Chino Valley School Board. That’s another school district in the Inland Empire, this one in San Bernardino County. And the issue is not books, but transgender kids. Tell us about that, how it played out and you know why Tony Thurmond, the school superintendent, you know, decided to go down there and address them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> He won’t talk to any of us!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> When you see something like that happen, only a couple of days after something like this happened, you do start to think, wait a second, is there a pattern happening? But there the school board voted for like what they call a parental notification system. So if a kid is transgender or identifies in a way that they say is not on their birth certificate as far as the pronouns that they want to use a bathroom, that’s different from what they used to be using, they’re going to notify their parents. So the conservative majority on that school board and the parents that support it say parents should know everything about their kids. That’s their right. And then gay rights advocates say this is really dangerous because the very kids that may not tell their parents might not feel safe and not be in homes where they feel safe to do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so you’re taking away from them this like sort of safe haven that they think a school should be by what they say would be outing them against their will. And so another potential pitfalls. Like everybody’s like, where’s Gavin on this? You know, it’s kind of hard for the governor to choose to be involved in one and not in this one. And we do know that that state lawmakers have already said, hey, we’re going to we’re going to work on something, write up a bill to to make sure that this doesn’t happen, because right now that that policy is approved and it’s, you know, that’s in play there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Before we talk, I do want to talk about Tony Thurmond, but you mention Newsom. And I do think that I mean, this feels like a stickier issue for him. I think it was very easy for him to come out swinging when Harvey Milk was accused of being a pedophile. But parental notification is not quite as clean of a line for for liberals, I would imagine.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, it’s all about the language, too. Parental notification, parental rights know, that’s sort of a cultural term that’s really hard for anybody to disagree with. It’s more one of those things that you need to drill down and understand what somebody means when they say that because it’s such an umbrella term, it’s like who would be anti-parent, you know, But you have to sort of get to what really what they mean behind that, I guess.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Well, we have seen the legislature obviously getting activated on this. And, you know, the school board association actually seemed to take Temecula side on that school book issue. We’ve got others, you know, warning about state overreach. Corey Jackson, a freshman legislator from down that way, has got a bill coming up around all this. Like where how do you see this shaking out in the legislature? And do we see more of those same fault lines that Marisa and you just talked about regarding like books versus parental notification?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> No. I mean, everyone I’ve talked to about the textbook law, at least, is like that. That bill is good as gold. So that bill before was a flop. I had talked to Jackson about it. It didn’t have support from important people like CTA or CCPA because it was became a local control issue. But the governors sort of swooped in and has made it his bill in a way, and immediately had tacked on support from leadership in the legislature. So everyone’s like, Yeah, that’s going to happen. There’s not really going to be a I don’t think there’s going to be a big divide there. And as you know, we have, you know, supermajorities of Democrats in the legislature. We’ll have to wait to see what the other issue, what the other bill looks like and if the old, you know, stand up against some, I guess, tougher criticism than this textbook bill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I know we just have you for a few more minutes, Mackenzie. I do want to ask the state superintendent, Tony Thurmond kind of shouted down out of that Chino Valley School board meeting. He says he was kicked out. It looked like he was kind of asked to leave maybe after his public comment. But I made a joke about Thurmond. I mean, he has not been super accessible, I think, to the press or the public in a lot of ways. Do you think he’s trying to kind of burnishes his credentials politically with all of this and and what role does he actually have a superintendent?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I mean, people in Sacramento definitely viewed it that way. He’s running for governor. Well, he had just announced that he, you know, is considering a run for governor and that he had opened a committee. So to see him, you know, stand up and talk in public. You know, he signed up as just like sort of like a layman, like a normal member of the public. It’s really kind of wild to see the state superintendent of all the schools in California just sort of show up there instead of like have you know, it kind of tells me that they weren’t working together, something on that issue. He was quick to tweet about it afterward and is angry with that district. And he did say he was ejected. And I watched the tape and I saw that police were talking to him at the podium afterward. But I also just saw just a few minutes ago that the school district put out a statement saying that that he wasn’t ejected. And now they’re angry with him for saying that he was.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> ‘We wish he’d kept talking.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s hard to it’s hard not to see, you know, it through a political lens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, of course. And of course, all this, you know, if you look at the broader politics, it’s playing out at a time that the legislature is trying to repeal the Prop eight, which passed in 2008 banning same sex marriage, Of course, that’s already been resolved through the courts. So it’s kind of symbolic. But, you know, we also have, you know, talk about repealing the travel ban to states which have anti LGBTQ politics and laws. So what do you make of the fact that all of this is coming up right now? I mean, is this just part is this in some way tied to 2024, do you think?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> I think that it’s that local piece again, I think because, I mean, California has the strongest LGBT rights and protections, like you just mentioned as a state, right. But I think to see this, it’s because it’s kind of the only way we can see them wedge through. Like maybe you might see this on a city council in a certain city or a board, a supes or something. But usually, you know, this is kind of as hyperlocal as it gets. And so I think that’s where we’re that’s sort of the only way it pokes through in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/strong> Final question before we let you go. I mean, the president has even been talking about this. We’ve seen him kind of linking the abortion SCOTUS decision and MAGA extremists to book bans. I know there’s a civil rights investigation by the Department of Education into whether Texas school district’s sweeping removal of LGBT themed books constitutes discrimination. We always talk about California leading the nation, are we are we going to be leaders here Mackenzie? What do we what do we expect in the coming months and in the next year on all of this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> On the textbook situation, I mean, we we sort of already are in a lot of ways. I think that’s part of the criticism too, is we already have the most stringent education standards for schools as far as diversity and inclusion goes. So I guess, you know, the governor has to follow through on this law, obviously, and it’ll probably be the strictest sort of form of regulation we’ve seen. And again, it will put California as sort of the antithesis of these red states, which is something we see Newsom do a lot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And, of course, all this is happening in during summer break. Right? Right. So the kids aren’t even in school and they’re all arguing about the kids. All right. Mackenzie Mays from the Los Angeles Times, thank you so much for joining us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mackenzie Mays:\u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/11956724/school-board-clashes-and-a-look-inside-newsoms-san-quentin-reforms",
"authors": [
"255",
"3239"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_22235",
"news_486",
"news_23"
],
"featImg": "news_11956730",
"label": "source_news_11956724"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"radioSearchSegmentsReducer": {},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026PresidentialReducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?program=political-breakdown": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 516,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 838,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_11964329",
"news_11963640",
"news_11962814",
"news_11962092",
"news_11961241",
"news_11960420",
"news_11959851",
"news_11959080",
"news_11958502",
"news_11957927",
"news_11957359",
"news_11956724"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_program_political-breakdown": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_33544": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33544",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33544",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Political Breakdown Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33561,
"slug": "political-breakdown",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/political-breakdown"
},
"source_news_11964329": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11964329",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11963640": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11963640",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11962814": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11962814",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11962092": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11962092",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11960420": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11960420",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11959851": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11959851",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11959080": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11959080",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11958502": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11958502",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11957927": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11957927",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11957359": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11957359",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11956724": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11956724",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_33520": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33520",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33520",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Podcast",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Podcast Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33537,
"slug": "podcast",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/podcast"
},
"news_177": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_177",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "177",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Nancy Pelosi",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Nancy Pelosi Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 184,
"slug": "nancy-pelosi",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/nancy-pelosi"
},
"news_22235": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_22235",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "22235",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"description": "\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-11638190\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/01/PB-for-FB-links.png\" alt=\"\" />\r\n\r\nJoin hosts\u003cstrong> Scott Shafer\u003c/strong> and \u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong> as they unpack the week in politics with a California perspective. Featuring interviews with reporters and other insiders involved in the craft of politics—including elected officials, candidates, pollsters, campaign managers, fundraisers, and other political players—\u003ci>Political Breakdown \u003c/i>pulls back the curtain to offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics works today.\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087?mt=2\">\u003cimg src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/01/Listen_on_Apple_Podcasts_sRGB_US-e1515635079510.png\" />\u003c/a>",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "Join hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos as they unpack the week in politics with a California perspective. Featuring interviews with reporters and other insiders involved in the craft of politics—including elected officials, candidates, pollsters, campaign managers, fundraisers, and other political players—Political Breakdown pulls back the curtain to offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics works today.",
"title": "Political Breakdown Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 22252,
"slug": "political-breakdown",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/political-breakdown"
},
"news_274": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_274",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "274",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Dianne Feinstein",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Dianne Feinstein Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 282,
"slug": "dianne-feinstein",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/dianne-feinstein"
},
"news_33277": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33277",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33277",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Laphonza Butler",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Laphonza Butler Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33294,
"slug": "laphonza-butler",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/laphonza-butler"
},
"news_31197": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_31197",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "31197",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Matt Mahan",
"slug": "matt-mahan",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Matt Mahan | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 31214,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/matt-mahan"
},
"news_18541": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18541",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18541",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Jose",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Jose Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 91,
"slug": "san-jose",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-jose"
},
"news_596": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_596",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "596",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Darrell Steinberg",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Darrell Steinberg Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 605,
"slug": "darrell-steinberg",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/darrell-steinberg"
},
"news_18502": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18502",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18502",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 47",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 47 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 18536,
"slug": "proposition-47",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-47"
},
"news_28549": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_28549",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "28549",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Reggie Jones-Sawyer",
"slug": "reggie-jones-sawyer",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Reggie Jones-Sawyer | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 28566,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/reggie-jones-sawyer"
},
"news_2923": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2923",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2923",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "reparations",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "reparations Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2941,
"slug": "reparations",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/reparations"
},
"news_23313": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_23313",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "23313",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Tony Thurmond",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Tony Thurmond Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 23330,
"slug": "tony-thurmond",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/tony-thurmond"
},
"news_6390": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6390",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6390",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Betty Yee",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Betty Yee Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6414,
"slug": "betty-yee",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/betty-yee"
},
"news_486": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_486",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "486",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Quentin",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Quentin Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 495,
"slug": "san-quentin",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-quentin"
},
"news_23": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_23",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "23",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Quentin State Prison",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Quentin State Prison Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 23,
"slug": "san-quentin-state-prison",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-quentin-state-prison"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
},
"requestOutcomesReducer": {
"notFound": []
},
"navPromosReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": true,
"promos": {
"news": {
"name": "2026 Voter Guide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"imageURL": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Nav-News-Nov2026ElectionCoverage@2x-7bd4aad4.png",
"description": "Get informed in minutes with our Voter Guide for California’s November 3 election."
},
"podcasts-radio": {},
"video-tv": {},
"events": {},
"support": {}
}
}
}