latimes--2020-11-01--This Uber driver died of COVID-19. Proposition 22 will sway his family's fate

Khaled Zayyid worked long days , driving as much as 80 hours a week for Uber , to provide for his family .
When he died in a Riverside County hospital in July of complications from COVID-19 , his wife and children were left without a breadwinner .
Reeling from grief , they were left to grapple with the nation ’ s worst economic downturn since the Great Depression .
Then they applied to the state workers ’ compensation program for death benefits — and got nothing .
The 56-year-old Zayyid had taken a hiatus from work when pandemic stay-at-home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
One morning in June , Zayyid packed a cooler with a few Diet Cokes and his diabetes medication and went back to driving full time .
He came home with stories of customers who jumped into the car bare-faced and refused when he offered masks from his personal stash .
His children begged him to return to spending his days at their house in suburban Corona , but the family ’ s savings had dwindled and federal stimulus money had run out .
He felt he had no choice .
About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , exhausted and sweating .
Zayyid said he felt cold , he felt hot , he couldn ’ t breathe .
He was buried on a sweltering day in July , relatives lined up in cars by the cemetery to pay their respects .
Through the state-administered workers ’ compensation program — created to provide wage replacement and medical benefits to workers who suffer job-related injuries or illnesses — the family might be eligible for at least $ 320,000 in death benefits , according to a lawyer the Zayyids consulted .
Given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two of their children who are still teenagers had been dependent on Zayyid ’ s earnings , the lawyer said the family might even be eligible for additional hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next few years .
Still numb from the loss , the Zayyids filed a workers ’ compensation claim .
But the claim was shut down .
A letter dated Sept. 30 said benefits were denied because Khaled Zayyid had been an independent contractor and never an Uber employee .
As part of Proposition 22 , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Californians will decide what should happen to families like the Zayyids .
Under the current state law known as Assembly Bill 5 , Uber and other companies are supposed to designate the gig workers who are core to their business models as employees , not as independent contractors , and provide them with benefits — including access to workers ’ compensation .
Gig companies have resisted complying with the law , which is why Zayyid was still a contractor at the time of his death .
Uber , Lyft , DoorDash and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the Yes on 22 campaign to secure an exemption from AB 5 .
If Proposition 22 passes , the measure would cement gig workers ’ status as independent contractors .
It would compel companies to give them some additional benefits that mimic those offered to employees under California labor law but are weaker .
The measure lays out plans for a private insurance policy to cover on-the-job injuries that in some ways replicates the state ’ s workers ’ compensation system .
However , experts say there are clear gaps , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s as comprehensive as workers ’ compensation .
Much discussion around Proposition 22 has focused on whether employee status is compatible with the type of flexible schedules workers hope to keep , and on uncertainty over whether gig companies will cut jobs if they are forced to turn gig workers into employees .
What is less understood are the nuances of the benefits Proposition 22 would confer .
“ They ’ re trying to re-create the workers ’ comp system , which is a couple hundred pages of law , in four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to get the same level of coverage , same level of benefits , or the same independent adjudication of the claim , ” said Glenn Shor , a former policy advisor at the California Department of Industrial Relations and lecturer in public health at Sacramento State University and UC Berkeley .
The text of Proposition 22 reveals some key differences between the proposed private policy and California ’ s workers ’ compensation program .
The ballot measure would require gig companies to provide coverage for medical expenses of at least $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could choose to cover more but would not have to .
By contrast , there is no limit on medical care expenses covered through the state program .
And while workers are eligible for lifelong assistance for permanent disability through the state and are entitled to vocational training if they need to switch jobs due to injury , the Proposition 22 policy would offer only two years of disability payments .
Additionally , experts say that under the Proposition 22 policy it would be more difficult for workers to secure compensation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An executive order in May — and codified into law by the Legislature in September — established a presumption in workers ’ compensation claims that essential workers infected with COVID-19 contracted the virus on the job .
Employers can fight it on a case-by-case basis , but it still means a lower burden of proof : To get the money , the workers need only show that their jobs put them at greater risk of contracting the coronavirus than the general public , said Cheryl Wallach , a lawyer who advocates for health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This relaxed burden of proof would not apply to claims under the private insurance policy , according to experts and an attorney for the Yes on 22 campaign .
More broadly , it ’ s unclear how claims under the private policy would be decided .
Shor said the state workers ’ compensation system is set up to be an independent body with objective judges , but Proposition 22 does not discuss how the private system would work .
If left up to the companies to decide exactly what kinds of claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them the power to make the systems ineffective and avoid paying benefits to workers , he said .
Representatives with the Yes on 22 campaign said the system would work like any other private insurance policy — auto or homeowners insurance , for example — that have set processes for submitting and disputing claims .
Disputes could be resolved by private parties through litigation or arbitration , and if state officials found companies were not holding up their end , they too could pursue litigation , said Geoff Vetter , a spokesman with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyer with Zapanta Alder Law who is representing the Zayyid family , remains skeptical that Proposition 22 ’ s insurance policy would be a suitable alternative to workers ’ compensation , even though the measure in theory provides for death benefits similar to those the Zayyid family applied for .
“ I don ’ t even know what court of law it would be applied in , ” Gaytan said .
“ It creates what we ’ d call a legal quagmire , this gray area that Uber and these ride-share companies can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions about whether the Zayyid family or others in similar situations would be qualified for death benefits under Proposition 22 .
Uber spokesman Davis White said in an email that the company and has paid out more than $ 10 million to over 16,750 drivers and delivery workers since March .
White said the policy also potentially covers driver fatalities , but that Uber had no record of Zayyid or his family contacting the company for assistance .
Gaytan said neither he nor the family knew the fund existed .
He added that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 days of financial assistance to a driver diagnosed with the virus or ordered to quarantine — is not a suitable replacement for hundreds of thousands of dollars in assistance provided as part of death benefits .
Gaytan is pushing for a trial through the workers ’ compensation appeals board to dispute Zayyid ’ s independent contractor status .
Courts deciding on worker classification cases are watching the ballot measure .
If Californians vote down Proposition 22 , the family will have a better chance at winning their case .
In the meantime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is working a new job as a loan officer , under pressure to help provide financially for his siblings — a brother and three sisters — and mother .
( He said he used to make decent money as a car salesman , but his commissions tanked when the pandemic hit . )
His father ’ s death isn ’ t the only one that has rocked the family in recent months .
Tarik ’ s uncle , Zayyid ’ s older brother , died of a heart attack in September , shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tarik and all but one of his siblings still live in the two-story home in Corona where the family has lived for nearly 20 years .
Everything in the house reminds Tarik of his father .
Zayyid was a handy man , constantly fixing things — clambering up on a ladder one day to tweak the chandelier , the next repairing tiles and stuccoing the walls .
The kids usually knew Zayyid was working on his daughter ’ s car when they heard the deep , quavering tones of celebrated Lebanese singer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stereo in the garage .
Zayyid was born and raised in Jordan , where his family settled after fleeing their home in Palestine during wartime .
He immigrated to California in his mid-20s .
His longtime friend Nabil Jabrun said Zayyid dreamed of going back to visit the region but hadn ’ t had a chance to do so in many years .
“ I would say , ‘ One of these days whenever you can , you will go see my home in Jerusalem , ” Jabrun said .
“ He would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to do that .
’ ”

Khaled Zayyid worked long days, driving as much as 80 hours a week for Uber, to provide for his family. When he died in a Riverside County hospital in July of complications from COVID-19, his wife and children were left without a breadwinner. Reeling from grief, they were left to grapple with the nation’s worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Then they applied to the state workers’ compensation program for death benefits — and got nothing.
The 56-year-old Zayyid had taken a hiatus from work when pandemic stay-at-home orders took effect. But expenses piled up. One morning in June, Zayyid packed a cooler with a few Diet Cokes and his diabetes medication and went back to driving full time.
Advertisement
He came home with stories of customers who jumped into the car bare-faced and refused when he offered masks from his personal stash. His children begged him to return to spending his days at their house in suburban Corona, but the family’s savings had dwindled and federal stimulus money had run out. He felt he had no choice.
About a week later he came home early, exhausted and sweating. Zayyid said he felt cold, he felt hot, he couldn’t breathe. He was buried on a sweltering day in July, relatives lined up in cars by the cemetery to pay their respects.
Through the state-administered workers’ compensation program — created to provide wage replacement and medical benefits to workers who suffer job-related injuries or illnesses — the family might be eligible for at least $320,000 in death benefits, according to a lawyer the Zayyids consulted. Given that his wife, Lamis, and the two of their children who are still teenagers had been dependent on Zayyid’s earnings, the lawyer said the family might even be eligible for additional hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next few years.
Still numb from the loss, the Zayyids filed a workers’ compensation claim. But the claim was shut down. A letter dated Sept. 30 said benefits were denied because Khaled Zayyid had been an independent contractor and never an Uber employee.
As part of Proposition 22, one of the highest-profile measures on Tuesday’s ballot, Californians will decide what should happen to families like the Zayyids.
Under the current state law known as Assembly Bill 5, Uber and other companies are supposed to designate the gig workers who are core to their business models as employees, not as independent contractors, and provide them with benefits — including access to workers’ compensation. Gig companies have resisted complying with the law, which is why Zayyid was still a contractor at the time of his death. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart have jointly poured $200 million into the Yes on 22 campaign to secure an exemption from AB 5.
Advertisement
If Proposition 22 passes, the measure would cement gig workers’ status as independent contractors. It would compel companies to give them some additional benefits that mimic those offered to employees under California labor law but are weaker. The measure lays out plans for a private insurance policy to cover on-the-job injuries that in some ways replicates the state’s workers’ compensation system. However, experts say there are clear gaps, and the program will not offer protection that’s as comprehensive as workers’ compensation.
Much discussion around Proposition 22 has focused on whether employee status is compatible with the type of flexible schedules workers hope to keep, and on uncertainty over whether gig companies will cut jobs if they are forced to turn gig workers into employees. What is less understood are the nuances of the benefits Proposition 22 would confer.
“They’re trying to re-create the workers’ comp system, which is a couple hundred pages of law, in four or five paragraphs. You’re not going to get the same level of coverage, same level of benefits, or the same independent adjudication of the claim,” said Glenn Shor, a former policy advisor at the California Department of Industrial Relations and lecturer in public health at Sacramento State University and UC Berkeley.
The text of Proposition 22 reveals some key differences between the proposed private policy and California’s workers’ compensation program.
The ballot measure would require gig companies to provide coverage for medical expenses of at least $1 million for on-the-job injuries, meaning they could choose to cover more but would not have to. By contrast, there is no limit on medical care expenses covered through the state program. And while workers are eligible for lifelong assistance for permanent disability through the state and are entitled to vocational training if they need to switch jobs due to injury, the Proposition 22 policy would offer only two years of disability payments.
Additionally, experts say that under the Proposition 22 policy it would be more difficult for workers to secure compensation for COVID-related illness, disability or death.
An executive order signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in May — and codified into law by the Legislature in September — established a presumption in workers’ compensation claims that essential workers infected with COVID-19 contracted the virus on the job. Employers can fight it on a case-by-case basis, but it still means a lower burden of proof: To get the money, the workers need only show that their jobs put them at greater risk of contracting the coronavirus than the general public, said Cheryl Wallach, a lawyer who advocates for health and safety laws with the nonprofit Worksafe.
This relaxed burden of proof would not apply to claims under the private insurance policy, according to experts and an attorney for the Yes on 22 campaign.
More broadly, it’s unclear how claims under the private policy would be decided. Shor said the state workers’ compensation system is set up to be an independent body with objective judges, but Proposition 22 does not discuss how the private system would work. If left up to the companies to decide exactly what kinds of claims qualify for coverage, it could give them the power to make the systems ineffective and avoid paying benefits to workers, he said.
Representatives with the Yes on 22 campaign said the system would work like any other private insurance policy — auto or homeowners insurance, for example — that have set processes for submitting and disputing claims. Disputes could be resolved by private parties through litigation or arbitration, and if state officials found companies were not holding up their end, they too could pursue litigation, said Geoff Vetter, a spokesman with the campaign.
Jordan Gaytan, a lawyer with Zapanta Alder Law who is representing the Zayyid family, remains skeptical that Proposition 22’s insurance policy would be a suitable alternative to workers’ compensation, even though the measure in theory provides for death benefits similar to those the Zayyid family applied for.
“I don’t even know what court of law it would be applied in,” Gaytan said. “It creates what we’d call a legal quagmire, this gray area that Uber and these ride-share companies can operate in.”
Uber declined to answer questions about whether the Zayyid family or others in similar situations would be qualified for death benefits under Proposition 22.
Uber spokesman Davis White said in an email that the company provides COVID-related financial assistance and has paid out more than $10 million to over 16,750 drivers and delivery workers since March. White said the policy also potentially covers driver fatalities, but that Uber had no record of Zayyid or his family contacting the company for assistance.
Gaytan said neither he nor the family knew the fund existed. He added that the policy — which provides up to 14 days of financial assistance to a driver diagnosed with the virus or ordered to quarantine — is not a suitable replacement for hundreds of thousands of dollars in assistance provided as part of death benefits.
Gaytan is pushing for a trial through the workers’ compensation appeals board to dispute Zayyid’s independent contractor status. Courts deciding on worker classification cases are watching the ballot measure. If Californians vote down Proposition 22, the family will have a better chance at winning their case.
In the meantime, Zayyid’s 28-year-old son Tarik is working a new job as a loan officer, under pressure to help provide financially for his siblings — a brother and three sisters — and mother. (He said he used to make decent money as a car salesman, but his commissions tanked when the pandemic hit.)
His father’s death isn’t the only one that has rocked the family in recent months. Tarik’s uncle, Zayyid’s older brother, died of a heart attack in September, shortly after helping to pay for the funeral.
Tarik and all but one of his siblings still live in the two-story home in Corona where the family has lived for nearly 20 years. Everything in the house reminds Tarik of his father.
Zayyid was a handy man, constantly fixing things — clambering up on a ladder one day to tweak the chandelier, the next repairing tiles and stuccoing the walls. The kids usually knew Zayyid was working on his daughter’s car when they heard the deep, quavering tones of celebrated Lebanese singer Fairuz drifting through the house from the stereo in the garage.
Zayyid was born and raised in Jordan, where his family settled after fleeing their home in Palestine during wartime. He immigrated to California in his mid-20s. His longtime friend Nabil Jabrun said Zayyid dreamed of going back to visit the region but hadn’t had a chance to do so in many years.
“I would say, ‘One of these days whenever you can, you will go see my home in Jerusalem,” Jabrun said.
“He would always say, ‘Inshallah, I want to do that.’”


latimes--2020-10-31--Jackie Lacey vs. George Gascón: What to know about L.A County district attorney's race

The battle to lead the Los Angeles County district attorney ’ s office is one of the most closely watched local races in the nation , seen by many as a referendum on criminal justice reform after a summer of protests against police brutality .
Former San Francisco Dist .
Atty .
George Gascón has mounted a well-funded challenge to veteran L.A. County Dist .
Atty .
Jackie Lacey from the left , claiming she has failed to hold police accountable and overseen a regressive , “ tough-on-crime ” office that ’ s focused simply on punishing crime rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she has balanced the need for leniency and pretrial diversion against public safety during her eight years in office , something she contends Gascón ‘ s lack of prosecutorial experience would prevent him from pulling off .
Here is the race at a glance : Lacey , 63 , became a deputy district attorney in 1986 and rose to be former Dist .
Atty .
Steve Cooley ’ s second in command before she was elected to replace him in 2012 .
She ran unopposed for a second term in 2016 .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American to be elected district attorney of L.A. County .
Under her leadership , the office has won a number of high-profile cases , convicting the “ Grim Sleeper ” serial killer and securing a plea deal that sent on manslaughter charges .
Earlier this year , she brought who was convicted on similar charges in New York City .
In recent months , she ’ s also filed a slew of rape charges against adult film actor Ron Jeremy .
Community activists have criticized her for declining to bring charges against police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
Others say some of her often touted reform programs — including alternative sentencing courts and a conviction review unit — are more for show and don ’ t help nearly enough defendants .
A career cop , Gascón , 65 , rose through the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department , becoming an assistant chief .
He went on to serve as police chief in Mesa , Ariz. , and San Francisco before he was appointed district attorney there in 2011 .
He served two terms before stepping down to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stars of a nationwide push to elect progressive prosecutors , Gascón was a co-author of Proposition 47 , the controversial initiative that reduced a number of crimes classified as felonies to misdemeanors .
He was also among the first prosecutors in the nation to after Californians voted to legalize the recreational use of cannabis and helped set the table for San Francisco ’ s shift away from the use of cash bail .
Law enforcement groups and others said his policies deterred police from making arrests for low-level crimes in San Francisco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 37 % under his tenure .
Donors have poured more than $ 14 million into the race , a figure political consultants say is high for a law enforcement election .
Gascón has taken in $ 7.3 million , while Lacey has collected about $ 6.8 million .
Much of the money backing Gascón has come in the form of six- and seven-figure checks from wealthy progressive mega-donors who favor criminal justice reform and have backed efforts like Proposition 47 and measures to abolish the death penalty in California .
Most of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though Gascón has also taken in $ 1.5 million from liberal philanthropist George Soros .
Lacey ’ s campaign is boosted primarily by law enforcement unions , with the Assn .
for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs leading the way , augmented by contributions from a political action committee established by the union representing rank-and-file LAPD officers and other police groups around the state .
Lacey was the top vote getter in a three-person primary , claiming 48 % of the vote to Gascon ’ s 28 % .
But after a summer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians — including U.S. Rep Adam Schiff ( D-Burbank ) and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti — to drop their endorsements of Lacey and instead back Gascón , some see her as vulnerable .
Gascón also has the support of the L.A. County Democratic Party .
In D.A.
’ s race framed by reform , George Gascón ’ s police career is under a microscope Jackie Lacey grew up in South L.A .
But in a tough D.A.
’ s race , her opponents are encroaching on her home turf How Jackie Lacey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in office shapes the L.A. County D.A .
's race Jackie Lacey is a longtime champion for mentally ill defendants .
But do her reforms go far enough ?

The battle to lead the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office is one of the most closely watched local races in the nation, seen by many as a referendum on criminal justice reform after a summer of protests against police brutality.
Former San Francisco Dist. Atty. George Gascón has mounted a well-funded challenge to veteran L.A. County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey from the left, claiming she has failed to hold police accountable and overseen a regressive, “tough-on-crime” office that’s focused simply on punishing crime rather than reducing it.
Lacey has countered that she has balanced the need for leniency and pretrial diversion against public safety during her eight years in office, something she contends Gascón‘s lack of prosecutorial experience would prevent him from pulling off.
Advertisement
Here is the race at a glance:
Jackie Lacey
Lacey, 63, became a deputy district attorney in 1986 and rose to be former Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley’s second in command before she was elected to replace him in 2012. She ran unopposed for a second term in 2016. She is the first woman and first African American to be elected district attorney of L.A. County.
Under her leadership, the office has won a number of high-profile cases, convicting the “Grim Sleeper” serial killer and securing a plea deal that sent Marion “Suge” Knight to prison for 28 years on manslaughter charges. Earlier this year, she brought sexual assault charges against fallen Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, who was convicted on similar charges in New York City. In recent months, she’s also filed a slew of rape charges against adult film actor Ron Jeremy.
Community activists have criticized her for declining to bring charges against police officers in a number of high-profile use-of-force cases. Others say some of her often touted reform programs — including alternative sentencing courts and a conviction review unit — are more for show and don’t help nearly enough defendants.
George Gascón
A career cop, Gascón, 65, rose through the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department, becoming an assistant chief. He went on to serve as police chief in Mesa, Ariz., and San Francisco before he was appointed district attorney there in 2011. He served two terms before stepping down to challenge Lacey last year.
One of the stars of a nationwide push to elect progressive prosecutors, Gascón was a co-author of Proposition 47, the controversial initiative that reduced a number of crimes classified as felonies to misdemeanors. He was also among the first prosecutors in the nation to successfully expunge a wide array of marijuana convictions after Californians voted to legalize the recreational use of cannabis and helped set the table for San Francisco’s shift away from the use of cash bail.
Law enforcement groups and others said his policies deterred police from making arrests for low-level crimes in San Francisco, where the property crime rate surged 37% under his tenure.
Money
Donors have poured more than $14 million into the race, a figure political consultants say is high for a law enforcement election. Gascón has taken in $7.3 million, while Lacey has collected about $6.8 million.
Advertisement
Much of the money backing Gascón has come in the form of six- and seven-figure checks from wealthy progressive mega-donors who favor criminal justice reform and have backed efforts like Proposition 47 and measures to abolish the death penalty in California. Most of them are concentrated in the Bay Area, though Gascón has also taken in $1.5 million from liberal philanthropist George Soros.
Lacey’s campaign is boosted primarily by law enforcement unions, with the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs leading the way, augmented by contributions from a political action committee established by the union representing rank-and-file LAPD officers and other police groups around the state.
State of the Race
Lacey was the top vote getter in a three-person primary, claiming 48% of the vote to Gascon’s 28%. But after a summer of protests against police shootings led many powerful politicians — including U.S. Rep Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti — to drop their endorsements of Lacey and instead back Gascón, some see her as vulnerable. Gascón also has the support of the L.A. County Democratic Party.
Reading list
San Franciscans question George Gascón’s legacy as ‘godfather of progressive prosecutors’
In D.A.’s race framed by reform, George Gascón’s police career is under a microscope
Jackie Lacey grew up in South L.A. But in a tough D.A.’s race, her opponents are encroaching on her home turf
How Jackie Lacey’s and George Gascón’s time in office shapes the L.A. County D.A.’s race
Jackie Lacey is a longtime champion for mentally ill defendants. But do her reforms go far enough?
L.A. County D.A. Jackie Lacey’s husband charged with assault in gun-waving incident


latimes--2020-10-29--Can L.A. County supervisors remove Sheriff Villanueva? Experts say the options are limited

The bitter discord among Los Angeles County ’ s top elected leaders ramped up a notch this week with a push by two supervisors to explore what it would take to remove Sheriff Alex Villanueva from his elected position .
The Board of Supervisors ’ vote on the matter was postponed by two weeks .
Questions remain , though , about whether the board has the power to force Villanueva out or whether the proposal is more of a symbolic gesture to pressure him as he faces mounting calls to resign .
The answers are complicated , and Villanueva has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove him .
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas — who wrote the proposal in one of his last moves before next week ’ s election , in which he ’ s running for a City Council seat after serving the maximum 12 years on the board — said it ’ s still worth at least looking into .
“ We will not be able to do that if we don ’ t try , ” he told The Times .
Ridley-Thomas and Supervisor Sheila Kuehl , who co-wrote the motion , have criticized Villanueva ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Inspector General , which oversees the Sheriff ’ s Department , and echoed calls for his resignation .
“ It has become increasingly clear that the sheriff ’ s blatant disregard for transparency and accountability requires a more forceful response , ” their motion says .
Villanueva has said that he has no plans to quit and that supervisors looking to undo the results of a lawful election could trigger a legal battle that would cost millions of dollars .
“ Let ’ s set aside the past and work out our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , offering a more conciliatory tone than usual .
He blamed the chief executive office , though , for not funding positions to comply with an “ avalanche ” of records requests under a new transparency law that made some internal police records public .
“ Transparency and accountability do not come cheap , ” he said .
Legal and governance experts said there are limited options in removing an elected officer short of a recall or their committing a crime .
“ There are plenty of checks and balances already in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dist .
Atty .
Steve Cooley .
“ The only way that some of these harebrained ideas will ever reach fruition is if the [ state ] Constitution is changed .
… If they change the Constitution , that would impact every single one of California ’ s 58 elected sheriffs.
” “ When you ’ re elected , it means something , ” said Frank V. Zerunyan , a professor on the practice of governance at USC .
Villanueva “ was elected — he ’ s using the Constitution to his favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I can ’ t blame him for saying what he ’ s saying.
” But there is case law as well as an old state attorney general opinion that suggests there ’ s a way to remove an elected sheriff in California , said Mario Mainero , a law professor at Chapman University ’ s Fowler School of Law .
In 2001 , then-California Atty .
Gen. Bill Lockyer concluded that a county charter may grant the board of supervisors the authority to remove the sheriff , district attorney or other county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The opinion was cited by a California appeals court in 2005 when it declared constitutional an ordinance approved by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors that allowed them to remove a sheriff for certain reasons — including flagrant or repeated neglect of duties , misappropriation of public property , violation of any law related to the performance of the official ’ s job duties or willfully falsifying a official document — with a four-fifths vote .
“ It makes it very clear that the board then has the power to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not remove for performing law enforcement functions , ” Mainero said .
“ They can not be doing this because they have a disagreement with the manner of performing law enforcement functions .
They ’ re going to have to do it based on something other than that.
” A sheriff ’ s refusal to comply with subpoenas or oversight laws could be justification for his removal , Mainero said .
Villanueva , however , would have to argue those actions interfered with his law enforcement duties .
“ He ’ s got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s his only argument , ” Mainero said .
“ But it doesn ’ t mean it ’ s true , and it doesn ’ t mean it ’ s not true.
” A judge would have to decide “ whether or not that ’ s a pretext by him or whether this really is an interference , ” Mainero said .
In San Bernardino County , the Board of Supervisors never actually tried to remove the sheriff , said county spokesman David Wert .
That case , he said , began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the county ’ s charter that gave the board the power to do so without any standards or process , “ leaving it vulnerable for abuse.
” So the board created the ordinance , which then-Sheriff Gary Penrod challenged , arguing that it conflicted with the Peace Officers Bill of Rights and his independence under state law , Wert said .
The appellate court didn ’ t weigh in on the bill of rights argument in its 2005 decision .
The ordinance says that the removal of an elected county officer “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in only the most egregious of circumstances and only when the interests of the citizens of the county can not be reasonably served by any other means .
These circumstances include the exposure of the county , or its employees , to irreparable harm.
” The proposal in Los Angeles County drew criticism from Ron Hernandez , president of the Assn .
of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs , the union that represents rank-and-file deputies .
“ As far as the board motion , I think they are blinded by their frustration and focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety of their communities , ” he said .
“ Any elected body who is focused on finding a way to override the voters has lost touch with the constituents they serve.
” Ridley-Thomas postponed the discussion and vote to Nov. 10 , saying he wanted his colleagues on the board to have more time to review the motion .
Already , there was some pushback .
“ I still stand by my belief that the sheriff is elected , ” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger , who opposes the motion .
“ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a community-led effort to vacate that seat prior to that , that that ’ s where the voters have a right .
”

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is investigating what it would take to remove Sheriff Alex Villanueva from his position.
The bitter discord among Los Angeles County’s top elected leaders ramped up a notch this week with a push by two supervisors to explore what it would take to remove Sheriff Alex Villanueva from his elected position.
The Board of Supervisors’ vote on the matter was postponed by two weeks. Questions remain, though, about whether the board has the power to force Villanueva out or whether the proposal is more of a symbolic gesture to pressure him as he faces mounting calls to resign.
The answers are complicated, and Villanueva has suggested he would challenge any effort to remove him.
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas — who wrote the proposal in one of his last moves before next week’s election, in which he’s running for a City Council seat after serving the maximum 12 years on the board — said it’s still worth at least looking into.
Advertisement
“We will not be able to do that if we don’t try,” he told The Times. Ridley-Thomas and Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who co-wrote the motion, have criticized Villanueva’s failure to cooperate with the Office of Inspector General, which oversees the Sheriff’s Department, and echoed calls for his resignation.
“It has become increasingly clear that the sheriff’s blatant disregard for transparency and accountability requires a more forceful response,” their motion says.
Villanueva has said that he has no plans to quit and that supervisors looking to undo the results of a lawful election could trigger a legal battle that would cost millions of dollars.
“Let’s set aside the past and work out our differences,” he told the board Tuesday, offering a more conciliatory tone than usual. He blamed the chief executive office, though, for not funding positions to comply with an “avalanche” of records requests under a new transparency law that made some internal police records public.
“Transparency and accountability do not come cheap,” he said.
Legal and governance experts said there are limited options in removing an elected officer short of a recall or their committing a crime.
“There are plenty of checks and balances already in place,” said former L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley. “The only way that some of these harebrained ideas will ever reach fruition is if the [state] Constitution is changed. … If they change the Constitution, that would impact every single one of California’s 58 elected sheriffs.”
Advertisement
“When you’re elected, it means something,” said Frank V. Zerunyan, a professor on the practice of governance at USC. Villanueva “was elected — he’s using the Constitution to his favor, rightfully so, to be honest. I can’t blame him for saying what he’s saying.”
But there is case law as well as an old state attorney general opinion that suggests there’s a way to remove an elected sheriff in California, said Mario Mainero, a law professor at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law.
In 2001, then-California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer concluded that a county charter may grant the board of supervisors the authority to remove the sheriff, district attorney or other county officer for cause with a four-fifths vote.
The opinion was cited by a California appeals court in 2005 when it declared constitutional an ordinance approved by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors that allowed them to remove a sheriff for certain reasons — including flagrant or repeated neglect of duties, misappropriation of public property, violation of any law related to the performance of the official’s job duties or willfully falsifying an official document — with a four-fifths vote.
“It makes it very clear that the board then has the power to remove, but is also clear they cannot remove for performing law enforcement functions,” Mainero said. “They cannot be doing this because they have a disagreement with the manner of performing law enforcement functions. They’re going to have to do it based on something other than that.”
A sheriff’s refusal to comply with subpoenas or oversight laws could be justification for his removal, Mainero said. Villanueva, however, would have to argue those actions interfered with his law enforcement duties.
“He’s got to make that argument, because that’s his only argument,” Mainero said. “But it doesn’t mean it’s true, and it doesn’t mean it’s not true.”
A judge would have to decide “whether or not that’s a pretext by him or whether this really is an interference,” Mainero said.
In San Bernardino County, the Board of Supervisors never actually tried to remove the sheriff, said county spokesman David Wert. That case, he said, began in 2002 when officials noticed a provision on the county’s charter that gave the board the power to do so without any standards or process, “leaving it vulnerable for abuse.”
So the board created the ordinance, which then-Sheriff Gary Penrod challenged, arguing that it conflicted with the Peace Officers Bill of Rights and his independence under state law, Wert said. The appellate court didn’t weigh in on the Bill of Rights argument in its 2005 decision.
The ordinance says that the removal of an elected county officer “is an extraordinary act and should occur in only the most egregious of circumstances and only when the interests of the citizens of the county cannot be reasonably served by any other means. These circumstances include the exposure of the county, or its employees, to irreparable harm.”
The proposal in Los Angeles County drew criticism from Ron Hernandez, president of the Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the union that represents rank-and-file deputies.
“As far as the board motion, I think they are blinded by their frustration and focused on the personality conflict instead of the safety of their communities,” he said. “Any elected body who is focused on finding a way to override the voters has lost touch with the constituents they serve.”
Ridley-Thomas postponed the discussion and vote to Nov. 10, saying he wanted his colleagues on the board to have more time to review the motion. Already, there was some pushback.
“I still stand by my belief that the sheriff is elected,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who opposes the motion. “And that, in 2022, unless there’s a community-led effort to vacate that seat prior to that, that that’s where the voters have a right.”
Times staff writer Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this report.


latimes--2020-11-02--Prop. 25: Everything you need to know about ending cash bail in California

Proposition 25 would decide whether California ’ s money bail system is unjust and should be replaced .
The referendum qualified for the ballot as the bail industry attempts to overturn a 2018 state law that would with one allowing pretrial release from jail based on a determination of public safety or a defendant ’ s flight risk .
The law also would restrict pretrial detention for most misdemeanors .
The 2018 law is not yet in effect , pending the referendum vote , which comes more than two years after a bitter legislative fight that pitted the multibillion-dollar bail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil liberties advocates against Democratic leaders , including then-Gov .
Jerry Brown , who signed the law , saying it will make sure “ rich and poor alike are treated fairly.
” The new law requires people held in county jails on suspicion of most misdemeanors to be released within 12 hours .
Those accused of other misdemeanors , including domestic violence or repeated failures to appear in court , would not be released automatically .
People held in county jails on felony charges and those not released automatically would be assessed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or failing to appear in court if released , using various factors to be decided by each county .
Those judged to be a low risk would be released , although the court could order supervision by county probation staff .
The issue of cash bail has gotten national attention in the presidential race and as part of the larger criminal justice reform movement .
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) have proposed ending money bail .
President Trump has criticized Biden ’ s position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of contributions , including from Steve Ballmer , the former Microsoft chief executive who owns the NBA ’ s Clippers , and his wife , Connie .
The bail bond industry has contributed more than $ 9 million to fight it .
California voters to decide whether to end cash bail system with Proposition 25 The long-brewing showdown over cash bail in California

Proposition 25 would decide whether California’s money bail system is unjust and should be replaced.
The issues
Proposition 25 would end cash bail in California.
The referendum qualified for the ballot as the bail industry attempts to overturn a 2018 state law that would replace the current cash bail system with one allowing pretrial release from jail based on a determination of public safety or a defendant’s flight risk. The law also would restrict pretrial detention for most misdemeanors.
The 2018 law is not yet in effect, pending the referendum vote, which comes more than two years after a bitter legislative fight that pitted the multibillion-dollar bail industry, criminal defense attorneys and some civil liberties advocates against Democratic leaders, including then-Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the law, saying it will make sure “rich and poor alike are treated fairly.”
Advertisement
The new law requires people held in county jails on suspicion of most misdemeanors to be released within 12 hours. Those accused of other misdemeanors, including domestic violence or repeated failures to appear in court, would not be released automatically.
People held in county jails on felony charges and those not released automatically would be assessed for their risk of committing a new crime or failing to appear in court if released, using various factors to be decided by each county. Those judged to be a low risk would be released, although the court could order supervision by county probation staff.
The state of play
The issue of cash bail has gotten national attention in the presidential race and as part of the larger criminal justice reform movement. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have proposed ending money bail. President Trump has criticized Biden’s position.
Propostion 25 has seen a flood of contributions, including from Steve Ballmer, the former Microsoft chief executive who owns the NBA’s Clippers, and his wife, Connie. The bail bond industry has contributed more than $9 million to fight it.
Reading list
California voters to decide whether to end cash bail system with Proposition 25
Explaining Prop. 25
Advertisement
Times columnist George Skelton on Prop. 25
The long-brewing showdown over cash bail in California
The California bail industry faces critical moment
Bail industry faces crisis amid criminal justice reform


latimes--2020-11-02--Gov. Newsom rebuked by Sutter County court for use of executive power amid COVID-19 pandemic

A Northern California judge on Monday tentatively ruled that Gov .
Gavin Newsom overstepped his authority when he issued an order in June requiring vote-by-mail ballots to be sent to the state ’ s 21 million registered voters .
Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman also issued an injunction barring the governor from taking executive action that “ changes existing statutory law or makes new statutory law or legislative policy , ” rebuking a governor who has relied heavily on executive orders to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic .
Heckman ’ s ruling determined that Newsom ’ s executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as enact other precautions to reduce the threat of spreading the virus during the elections process , violated the California Constitution because it created new law .
Under the state ’ s constitutional separation of powers , only the Legislature has the power to create laws .
The ruling found that the Emergency Services Act , also referred to as CESA , gives the governor authority “ to suspend certain statutes , not to amend any statutes or create new ones.
” Because the California Legislature subsequently voted to enact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enacted with his order , as well as other safeguards , the ruling will not affect the November election .
The governor ’ s office and the plaintiffs who filed the legal action will be given an opportunity to respond to the tentative decision before it becomes official .
Newsom ’ s office is expected to appeal .
The Sutter County Superior Court ruling is not expected to have an impact on the state ’ s mandates for Californians to wear masks when out in public , or other pandemic-related statewide restrictions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health officer , who reports to Newsom , has the authority under state law to combat a contagious , infectious or communicable disease by taking “ measures as are necessary to ascertain the nature of the disease and prevent its spread , ” according to the state health and safety code .
That law is separate from the Emergency Services Act .
Since he declared a state of emergency in mid-March , Newsom has issued more than 50 executive orders involving the COVID-19 pandemic that address a range of issues including price gouging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsom defended the executive actions , saying he issued the order to mail ballots and enact safeguards for in-person voting because he wanted to ensure the election took place as safely as possible .
He noted that state lawmakers agreed and later codified those safeguards into law .
“ We did what we thought was appropriate certainly within the framework of the constitutional authority that is invested in this office the executive branch , ” Newsom said during a news conference .
The legal challenge was filed by two Republican state assemblymen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kiley of Rocklin , who are both attorneys and argued the case .
“ This is a victory for separation of powers .
The Governor has continued to create and change state law without public input and without the deliberative process provided by the Legislature .
Today the judicial branch again gave him the check that was needed and that the Constitution requires , ” the two lawmakers said in a joint statement after the tentative ruling was released .
“ Nobody disputes that there are actions that should be taken to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t mean that we put our Constitution and free society on hold by centralizing all power in the hands of one man.
” Newsom spokesman Jesse Melgar said the administration is “ evaluating next steps.
” “ The tentative ruling makes clear that the Governor ’ s statutory emergency authority is broad , and constitutional , and that the Governor has the authority , necessary in emergencies , to suspend statutes and issue orders to protect Californians , ” Melgar said in a statement released Monday afternoon .
“ Additionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatsoever on the current election .
We strongly disagree with specific limitations the ruling places on the exercise of the Governor ’ s emergency authority.
” Gallagher also said that the ruling would not affect voters in the Nov. 3 election .
“ It doesn ’ t impact their ability to cast a vote in this election and it cast no doubts on this election , ” he said .
Gallagher and Kiley asked the judge to bar the governor from issuing any future executive orders that “ exercise legislative powers , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The evidence persuades the Court it is reasonably probable the Governor will continue issuing executive orders which amend statutory law and create legislative policy under the purported authority of the CESA , violating the California Constitution and the rights of plaintiffs thereunder and giving rise to a multiplicity of judicial proceedings , unless restrained by a permanent injunction , ” Heckman stated in the ruling .
The tentative ruling upheld the constitutionality ofthe state Emergency Services Act , a 50-year-old state law that grants the governor widespread power to respond during a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In October , the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer lacked the authority to issue emergency orders under a similar law in that state .
During a hearing last month , California Deputy Atty .
Gen. John Killeen argued that Newsom had the authority to issue the executive order requiring all voters to receive mail-in ballots under California ’ s Emergency Services Act .
The law grants the governor substantial authority during a state of emergency , including “ complete authority over all agencies of the state government and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all police power vested in the state by the Constitution and laws of the state of California.
” The law also allowsthe governor to commandeer private property , redirect state funds and suspend any regulatory statues , orders , rules or regulations that “ would in any way prevent , hinder , or delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.
” “ If the governor can suspend statutes but not direct what will happen next , then you have a vacuum , ” Killeen argued during the hearing on the legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would then be stuck just waiting , hoping that the Legislature would act eventually .
Is that how an emergency should be addressed ?
Of course not .
That ’ s why the Legislature vested all the police power of the state in the governor until the Legislature itself can act.
” During the hearing , Killeen also expressed concern about the possibility that a ruling could impinge on the governor ’ s executive authority .
Legal challenges to the governor ’ s authority under the Emergency Services Act have been rare over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have used that authority to respond to regional disasters such as earthquakes , wildfires , drought and flooding .
But with the pandemic affecting the entire state and the daily lives of nearly 40 million Californians , it has remained a threat to public health since the outbreak hit in March .
The spread of the virus is not expected to significantly subside until effective vaccinations and treatments are in place , likely well into 2021 .
In defense of Newsom ’ s actions , Killeen relied in part on a 1995 California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a governor ’ s authority during times of emergency .
That case stemmed from former Gov .
George Deukmejian ’ s 1989 executive order to begin aerial spraying of malathion in Los Angeles County because of an infestation of the crop-destroying Mediterranean fruit fly .
Killeen said the state Supreme Court ruling stated that “ the governor ’ s emergency powers are without a doubt the single most compelling and absolute exercise of sovereign authority that the state acting through its chief executive may pursue .
The Supreme Court specifically said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and affirmatively interfere with the state ’ s decision as to how best to respond to the emergency .
”

Gov. Gavin Newsom, seen during a springtime COVID-19 briefing, faced a legal challenge over his authority to issue broad executive orders without legislative approval.
A Northern California judge on Monday tentatively ruled that Gov. Gavin Newsom overstepped his authority when he issued an order in June requiring vote-by-mail ballots to be sent to the state’s 22 million registered voters.
Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman also issued an injunction barring the governor from taking executive action that “changes existing statutory law or makes new statutory law or legislative policy,” rebuking a governor who has relied heavily on executive orders to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Heckman’s ruling determined that Newsom’s executive order to send out the vote-by-mail ballots, as well as enact other precautions to reduce the threat of spreading the virus during the elections process, violated the California Constitution because it created new law. Under the state’s constitutional separation of powers, only the Legislature has the power to create laws.
The ruling found that the Emergency Services Act, also referred to as CESA, gives the governor authority “to suspend certain statutes, not to amend any statutes or create new ones.”
Because the California Legislature subsequently voted to enact the same vote-by-mail policy that Newsom had enacted with his order, as well as other safeguards, the ruling will not affect the November election.
The governor’s office and the plaintiffs who filed the legal action will be given an opportunity to respond to the tentative decision before it becomes official. Newsom’s office is expected to appeal.
Advertisement
The Sutter County Superior Court ruling is not expected to have an impact on the state’s mandates for Californians to wear masks when out in public, or other pandemic-related statewide restrictions on activities and businesses.
The state public health officer, who reports to Newsom, has the authority under state law to combat a contagious, infectious or communicable disease by taking “measures as are necessary to ascertain the nature of the disease and prevent its spread,” according to the state health and safety code. That law is separate from the Emergency Services Act.
Since he declared a state of emergency in mid-March, Newsom has issued more than 50 executive orders involving the COVID-19 pandemic that address a range of issues including price gouging and halting evictions.
In October, Newsom defended the executive actions, saying he issued the order to mail ballots and enact safeguards for in-person voting because he wanted to ensure the election took place as safely as possible. He noted that state lawmakers agreed and later codified those safeguards into law.
“We did what we thought was appropriate certainly within the framework of the constitutional authority that is invested in this office, the executive branch,” Newsom said during a news conference.
The legal challenge was filed by two Republican state assemblymen, James Gallagher of Yuba City and Kevin Kiley of Rocklin, who are both attorneys and argued the case.
“This is a victory for separation of powers. The governor has continued to create and change state law without public input and without the deliberative process provided by the Legislature. Today the judicial branch again gave him the check that was needed and that the Constitution requires,” the two lawmakers said in a joint statement after the tentative ruling was released. “Nobody disputes that there are actions that should be taken to keep people safe during an emergency. But that doesn’t mean that we put our Constitution and free society on hold by centralizing all power in the hands of one man.”
Advertisement
Newsom spokesman Jesse Melgar said the administration is “evaluating next steps.”
“The tentative ruling makes clear that the governor’s statutory emergency authority is broad, and constitutional, and that the governor has the authority, necessary in emergencies, to suspend statutes and issue orders to protect Californians,” Melgar said in a statement released Monday afternoon. “Additionally, this ruling has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the current election. We strongly disagree with specific limitations the ruling places on the exercise of the governor’s emergency authority.”
Gallagher also said that the ruling would not affect voters in the Nov. 3 election.
“It doesn’t impact their ability to cast a vote in this election and it cast no doubts on this election,” he said.
Gallagher and Kiley asked the judge to bar the governor from issuing any future executive orders that “exercise legislative powers,” a request the judge granted.
“The evidence persuades the court it is reasonably probable the governor will continue issuing executive orders which amend statutory law and create legislative policy under the purported authority of the CESA, violating the California Constitution and the rights of plaintiffs thereunder and giving rise to a multiplicity of judicial proceedings, unless restrained by a permanent injunction,” Heckman stated in the ruling.
The tentative ruling upheld the constitutionality of the state Emergency Services Act, a 50-year-old state law that grants the governor widespread power to respond during a state of emergency such as a pandemic. In October, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer lacked the authority to issue emergency orders under a similar law in that state.
During a hearing last month, California Deputy Atty. Gen. John Killeen argued that Newsom had the authority to issue the executive order requiring all voters to receive mail-in ballots under California’s Emergency Services Act.
The law grants the governor substantial authority during a state of emergency, including “complete authority over all agencies of the state government and the right to exercise within the area designated all police power vested in the state by the Constitution and laws of the state of California.”
The law also allows the governor to commandeer private property, redirect state funds and suspend any regulatory statutes, orders, rules or regulations that “would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.”
“If the governor can suspend statutes but not direct what will happen next, then you have a vacuum,” Killeen argued during the hearing on the legal challenge in October. “Local officials would then be stuck just waiting, hoping that the Legislature would act eventually. Is that how an emergency should be addressed? Of course not. That’s why the Legislature vested all the police power of the state in the governor until the Legislature itself can act.”
During the hearing, Killeen also expressed concern about the possibility that a ruling could impinge on the governor’s executive authority.
Legal challenges to the governor’s authority under the Emergency Services Act have been rare over the last half-century, primarily because governors have used that authority to respond to regional disasters such as earthquakes, wildfires, drought and flooding.
But with the pandemic affecting the entire state and the daily lives of nearly 40 million Californians, it has remained a threat to public health since the outbreak hit in March. The spread of the virus is not expected to significantly subside until effective vaccinations and treatments are in place, likely well into 2021.
In defense of Newsom’s actions, Killeen relied in part on a 1995 California Supreme Court ruling that defined the scope of a governor’s authority during times of emergency. That case stemmed from former Gov. George Deukmejian’s 1989 executive order to begin aerial spraying of malathion in Los Angeles County because of an infestation of the crop-destroying Mediterranean fruit fly.
Killeen said the state Supreme Court ruling stated that “the governor’s emergency powers are without a doubt the single most compelling and absolute exercise of sovereign authority that the state acting through its chief executive may pursue. The Supreme Court specifically said that generally individuals cannot ‘second-guess’ and affirmatively interfere with the state’s decision as to how best to respond to the emergency.”


latimes--2020-11-02--L.A. County's hope for fast reopening fades as coronavirus cases continue to climb

Hopes that a wider reopening of Los Angeles County ’ s economy could come in time for the holidays appear to be fading , as the region continues to see a steady uptick in the average number of daily coronavirus infections .
While the spike is nowhere near as severe as those in other parts of the country , L.A. County ’ s seven-day average has increased from 940 new cases a day in early October to more than 1,275 each day as of last week , health officials said .
L.A. County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer announced 1,406 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Sunday .
The county ’ s total now tops 310,000 .
The county typically reports fewer new cases on Sunday and Monday because of reporting lags over the weekend , “ so , if that trend holds true , we ’ re going to see higher numbers the rest of the week , ” Ferrer said during a briefing .
“ Our cases are , at best , stabilizing at a high number , ” she said .
“ At worst , they ’ re going to go up.
” Any increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push the county further from being able to more widely reopen businesses and other public facilities .
In California ’ s four-tier reopening roadmap , L.A. County remains firmly in the most restrictive Tier 1 ( purple ) .
Counties in that category have an average of more than seven new infections for every 100,000 residents , or the percentage of tests that detect the virus is more than 8 % .
Case rates are adjusted to account for how much testing is being done .
L.A. County ’ s adjusted case rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the week before .
To progress to a less-restrictive tier , a county must meet the next tier ’ s criteria for two straight weeks .
Given the direction L.A. County is heading , it ’ s “ unlikely , then , in the next two weeks that we make any movement , ” Ferrer said .
She stressed , though , that the decisions residents make today are significant in determining whether the county moves forward .
Choosing to follow health protocols — maintaining physical distance , wearing face coverings in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond one ’ s immediate household — can help the county get back on the right path .
“ While it ’ s easy to believe that the virus won ’ t spread among your families and friends , and that none of you are infected , there are so many examples that prove otherwise , ” Ferrer said .
While residents may be growing weary of following the same guidance that has been in place for months , adhering to infection prevention measures is the key to moving closer to normalcy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic of a magnitude we have never experienced in our lifetimes , and the faster we get it under control , the faster we return to being able to do the types of things we love to do , ” she said .

Jennifer Olivas hands treats to 6-year-old twins Loucia Ramirez, left, and Adriana Ramirez during the Monterey Park Candy Caravan on Thursday at Highlands Park. The drive-through trick-or-treat event was held at five locations around the city.
Hopes that a wider reopening of Los Angeles County’s economy could come in time for the holidays appear to be fading, as the region continues to see a steady uptick in the average number of daily coronavirus infections.
While the spike is nowhere near as severe as those in other parts of the country, L.A. County’s seven-day average has increased from about 940 new cases a day in early October to more than 1,275 each day as of last week, health officials said.
L.A. County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer announced 1,406 new COVID-19 cases Monday, following 1,590 on Sunday. The county’s total now tops 310,000.
Advertisement
The county typically reports fewer new cases on Sunday and Monday because of reporting lags over the weekend, “so, if that trend holds true, we’re going to see higher numbers the rest of the week,” Ferrer said during a briefing.
“Our cases are, at best, stabilizing at a high number,” she said. “At worst, they’re going to go up.”
Any increase in the coronavirus case load threatens to push the county further from being able to more widely reopen businesses and other public facilities.
In California’s four-tier reopening roadmap, L.A. County remains firmly in the most restrictive Tier 1 (purple). Counties in that category have an average of more than seven new infections for every 100,000 residents, or the percentage of tests that detect the virus is more than 8%.
Case rates are adjusted to account for how much testing is being done. L.A. County’s adjusted case rate increased last week to 8 from 7.6 the week before.
Advertisement
Tracking the coronavirus in L.A. County The latest maps and charts on the spread of COVID-19 in Los Angeles County, including cases, deaths, closures and restrictions.
To progress to a less-restrictive tier, a county must meet the next tier’s criteria for two straight weeks. Given the direction L.A. County is heading, it’s “unlikely, then, in the next two weeks that we make any movement,” Ferrer said.
She stressed, though, that the decisions residents make today are significant in determining whether the county moves forward. Choosing to follow health protocols — maintaining physical distance, wearing face coverings in public, washing hands regularly and limiting mixing with other households — can help the county get back on the right path.
“We do appreciate that we’re months into this, nine months in now, and we have to find ways for us to do some of the activities that are essential to our well-being, but we have to do those in ways that minimize risk,” Ferrer said.
Though small-scale gatherings of no more than three households may be held outdoors with limitations — including time restrictions, required face coverings and physical distancing — the county continues to see evidence linking coronavirus transmission to people mingling together without following the rules, Ferrer said.
“While it’s easy to believe that the virus won’t spread among your families and friends, and that none of you are infected, there are so many examples that prove otherwise,” she said.
The potential for gatherings to serve as conduits for coronavirus spread is particularly concerning heading into the end of the year, which will bring cooler weather that will move people indoors and holidays at which people traditionally gather.
Residents also could be tempted to celebrate or commiserate depending on how they feel about the results of Tuesday’s election. But they must take precautions and follow public health guidance if they plan to do so.
“Simply put, you make the choice to protect other people or potentially infect other people with the actions you’re taking every single day,” Ferrer said.
While people may be growing weary of following the same guidance that has been in place for months, adhering to infection prevention measures is the key to moving closer to normalcy, Ferrer said.
“This is a pandemic of a magnitude we have never experienced in our lifetimes, and the faster we get it under control, the faster we return to being able to do the types of things we love to do,” she said.
But it’s also important to “recognize how well California is doing,” said Paula Cannon, a professor of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Keck School of Medicine at USC.
“Take a look at the graphs and the charts for California compared to many, many other states, and just recognize that for the most populous state and for the most populous city in the most populous state ... we are doing a phenomenal job,” she said in a recent interview.
Roughly 97,000 new COVID-19 cases were reported nationwide Friday — an all-time high, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The previous record, about 88,500, had been set the day before.
Though widespread, the latest surge is not affecting all states uniformly. Texas, for instance, has recently seen its coronavirus case count climb substantially — so much that it has officially surpassed California as the state with the highest number of cumulative confirmed infections, despite having 10 million fewer residents, data compiled by The Times show.
That’s not to say “everybody can let their guard down,” Cannon emphasized, but Californians should “recognize that this is working. All the sacrifice is meaningful, and it’s working.”


latimes--2020-11-02--What you should know about how and when California counts ballots

The task facing election officials in California ’ s 58 counties is daunting : Collect , verify and count the votes on as many as 22 million ballots ; don ’ t start counting until the polls close at 8 p.m. on Tuesday ; and quench the thirst of the public for final results as soon as possible .
While the long wait for election results is unfamiliar in other parts of the country , it ’ s common practice in the Golden State .
For most of the last decade , the wait for final results has lasted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws have expanded voter access and the number of ballots cast has increased .
It may be frustrating for those waiting to declare victory , but it ’ s how California elections have been designed to work .
California has more voters than any state California has 22 million registered voters — not only more voters than any other state but more voters than there are residents in 48 states .
Simply put , more voters mean more ballots cast and more time needed to tally the votes .
And the rising number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a similar increase in funding for election administration .
For much of the last two decades , state government budget shortfalls have meant less money for counties to spend on election-related expenses .
The budget signed by Gov .
Gavin Newsom in June earmarked largely one-time money , from state and federal sources combined , for this election .
But resources have not kept up with demand as more Californians register and cast ballots .
In the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election recount , a number of states moved away from paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punched in cards , and chose new electronic voting using touchscreens .
A few California counties also embraced those systems , purchased with state and federal voting assistance money .
But it didn ’ t last as security and accuracy concerns were raised and demand grew for every vote to produce a clear , paper record that a voter could check for accuracy .
The Legislature mandated in 2004 that machines produce a paper record of every vote , and current models only mark paper ballots instead of recording and transmitting votes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership in requiring paper voting records .
Still , that means ballots that must be tabulated by election workers .
The most popular ballot design , which requires voters to use a pen to fill in an oval , is counted by an optical scanner that reads each ballot and each race .
An ever-increasing number of Californians prefer to vote somewhere other than a traditional polling place .
In 2002 , California removed all barriers to absentee voting , allowing any voter to permanently receive a ballot in the mail .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift in voter preferences , with a majority of Californians having voted remotely in every statewide primary and general election since 2012 .
Three rural counties — Alpine , Plumas and Sierra — conduct all elections with mail ballots .
But absentee voting has grown even more since 2016 , as counties signed on to an optional state law that allows traditional polling places to be shuttered in exchange for mailing every registered voter a ballot and offering regional “ vote centers.
” Fifteen counties , representing more than 11 million registered voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Choice Act .
In other words : Even without the decision this year by legislators and Newsom to mail every voter a ballot as part of the state ’ s COVID-19 response , half of California ’ s registered voters would have already received one under existing law .
In 2014 , California enacted a three-day grace period for a ballot to arrive at a local election office , as long as the ballot is postmarked by election day .
Supporters of the law pointed out that federal and state taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if postmarked by April 15 and a ballot should be held to the same standard .
This year , lawmakers have extended the ballot delivery deadline , a one-time change , to Nov. 20 — 17 days after election day .
The modification was made to address concerns about how public health requirements could slow ballot processing and delays experienced by the U.S .
Postal Service .
State officials also added a new fail-safe to the process this year , requiring the use of barcodes on vote-by-mail envelopes that can verify the date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or illegible .
The practical effect of these changes is that the final outcome in close races could be unclear until almost Thanksgiving .
Within days of when ballots were mailed to voters in early October , they ’ ve been flooding back to county election offices .
But there are strict limits on what local officials can do with those ballots before the election is officially over .
Prior to the close of the polls at 8 p.m. on Nov. 3 , ballots can be readied for counting by checking signatures on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then scanning them to ensure no stray marks were made .
But the actual vote tally must wait until election night .
The first results Californians see are those from ballots that arrived early and those cast at voting locations on election day .
Ballots that arrived too late for election officials to do all the prep work have to wait .
And all of this means results can take several days .
Errors made by an absentee voter signing the envelope — including a missing signature or one that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with local or state officials — are a concern across the United States when so many voters are choosing to skip in-person voting .
California , unlike some states , offers voters the chance to correct the problem .
If there ’ s no signature , election officials must give the voter until Nov. 11 — eight days after election day — to fix the problem .
If the signatures don ’ t match , the voter must be notified at least eight days before election results are certified .
With certification on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be contacted by Nov. 25 and given until Dec. 1 to resolve the signature discrepancy .
This process has not led to surprise outcomes in prior elections .
But it serves as a reminder that the election won ’ t truly end until next month .

A voter hands her ballot to an election official at a drive-through ballot dropoff at the Registrar of Voters Office in Riverside.
The task facing election officials in California’s 58 counties is daunting: Collect, verify and count the votes on as many as 22 million ballots; don’t start counting until the polls close at 8 p.m. on Tuesday; and quench the thirst of the public for final results as soon as possible.
While the long wait for election results is unfamiliar in other parts of the country, it’s common practice in the Golden State. For most of the last decade, the wait for final results has lasted for close to a month as new election laws have expanded voter access and the number of ballots cast has increased.
It may be frustrating for those waiting to declare victory, but it’s how California elections have been designed to work.
Advertisement
California has more voters than any state
California has 22 million registered voters — not only more voters than any other state but more voters than there are residents in 48 states.
Simply put, more voters mean more ballots cast and more time needed to tally the votes.
And the rising number of voters has not been matched by a similar increase in funding for election administration. For much of the last two decades, state government budget shortfalls have meant less money for counties to spend on election-related expenses. The budget signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in June earmarked largely one-time money, from state and federal sources combined, for this election. But resources have not kept up with demand as more Californians register and cast ballots.
Paper voting records mean less automation
In the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election recount, a number of states moved away from paper voting systems, in which holes were punched in cards, and chose new electronic voting using touchscreens. A few California counties also embraced those systems, purchased with state and federal voting assistance money.
But it didn’t last as security and accuracy concerns were raised and demand grew for every vote to produce a clear, paper record that a voter could check for accuracy. The Legislature mandated in 2004 that machines produce a paper record of every vote, and current models only mark paper ballots instead of recording and transmitting votes.
Voter advocacy groups applauded California’s leadership in requiring paper voting records. Still, that means ballots that must be tabulated by election workers. The most popular ballot design, which requires voters to use a pen to fill in an oval, is counted by an optical scanner that reads each ballot and each race.
California’s steady rise in absentee voters
An ever-increasing number of Californians prefer to vote somewhere other than a traditional polling place.
Advertisement
In 2002, California removed all barriers to absentee voting, allowing any voter to permanently receive a ballot in the mail. The two decades that followed saw a gradual shift in voter preferences, with a majority of Californians having voted remotely in every statewide primary and general election since 2012. Three rural counties — Alpine, Plumas and Sierra — conduct all elections with mail ballots.
But absentee voting has grown even more since 2016, as counties signed on to an optional state law that allows traditional polling places to be shuttered in exchange for mailing every registered voter a ballot and offering regional “vote centers.” Fifteen counties, representing more than 11 million registered voters, have signed on to the Voter’s Choice Act.
In other words: Even without the decision this year by legislators and Newsom to mail every voter a ballot as part of the state’s COVID-19 response, half of California’s registered voters would have already received one under existing law.
The grace period for ballot mail delivery
In 2014, California enacted a three-day grace period for a ballot to arrive at a local election office, as long as the ballot is postmarked by election day. Supporters of the law pointed out that federal and state taxes are considered to be paid on time if postmarked by April 15 and a ballot should be held to the same standard.
This year, lawmakers have extended the ballot delivery deadline, a one-time change, to Nov. 20 — 17 days after election day. The modification was made to address concerns about how public health requirements could slow ballot processing and delays experienced by the U.S. Postal Service. State officials also added a new fail-safe to the process this year, requiring the use of barcodes on vote-by-mail envelopes that can verify the date of return when the postmark is missing or illegible.
The practical effect of these changes is that the final outcome in close races could be unclear until almost Thanksgiving.
Counting begins on election night
Within days of when ballots were mailed to voters in early October, they’ve been flooding back to county election offices. But there are strict limits on what local officials can do with those ballots before the election is officially over.
Prior to the close of the polls at 8 p.m. on Nov. 3, ballots can be readied for counting by checking signatures on envelopes, removing ballots from the envelopes and then scanning them to ensure no stray marks were made. But the actual vote tally must wait until election night.
The first results Californians see are those from ballots that arrived early and those cast at voting locations on election day. Ballots that arrived too late for election officials to do all the prep work have to wait. And all of this means results can take several days.
Signature problems can be fixed
Errors made by an absentee voter signing the envelope — including a missing signature or one that doesn’t match what’s on file with local or state officials — are a concern across the United States when so many voters are choosing to skip in-person voting.
California, unlike some states, offers voters the chance to correct the problem. If there’s no signature, election officials must give the voter until Nov. 11 — eight days after election day — to fix the problem. If the signatures don’t match, the voter must be notified at least eight days before election results are certified. With certification on Dec. 3, that means voters must be contacted by Nov. 25 and given until Dec. 1 to resolve the signature discrepancy.
This process has not led to surprise outcomes in prior elections. But it serves as a reminder that the election won’t truly end until next month.


latimes--2020-11-02--Santa Clara County sues San Jose church for coronavirus violations

Officials in Santa Clara County are pursuing legal action against a San Jose-based church accused of violating public health orders during the COVID-19 pandemic .
According to court documents filed jointly by the Santa Clara County district attorney ’ s office and county counsel , Calvary Chapel has been hosting weekly indoor church services for as many as 600 people , who often stand in close proximity to one another without wearing masks or face coverings .
County officials said they spent months trying to get the church to comply with current public health orders — which limit indoor gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people — by offering detailed explanations of the risk and presenting safe alternatives such as drive-in religious services , all to little avail .
“ The vast majority of religious institutions within the county have continued to practice their faith while also complying with state and county public health orders to protect the health of their congregants and the entire community , and especially the sick , elderly , and vulnerable , ” the complaint says , adding that the church “ refused to utilize these options.
” The lawsuit names both Cavalry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McClure , as defendants , noting that they “ have chosen to flagrantly and repeatedly ” violate public health orders .
More than $ 350,000 in civil fines also failed to deter the church from hosting gatherings , documents show .
In livestreamed videos posted on the church ’ s YouTube channel , dozens of people can be seen congregating in pews and even hugging or conversing near one another on multiple occasions .
The videos also show several people sharing the same microphone to sing and speak on a stage .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size and pose an imminent risk of a super-spreader event , ” the complaint says .
Church officials and congregants did not respond to requests for comment , although McClure told the Mercury News in May that he didn ’ t care what officials said and that he was “ never again going to close the doors , ever.
” Cavalry is far from the only church to come under fire for flouting pandemic protocols .
Earlier this year , a church in South Korea was linked to more than 300 cases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least 70 cases were linked to a Pentecostal church in Sacramento .
Similar scenes of infection and even death have played out in churches in Kentucky , West Virginia , Texas , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Maine , North Carolina and other states , according to court documents .
“ The obligation to preserve and protect life is at the heart of all major faiths , ” Santa Clara County Dist .
Atty .
Jeff Rosen said in a statement .
“ We are grateful that virtually all religious congregations in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk the safety of their congregants or the community .
All of us are making difficult sacrifices that are saving lives.
” It ’ s not the first time Santa Clara County has been under a microscope : It was considered an early hot spot of the nation ’ s coronavirus outbreak , home to the second case in California and the seventh overall in the United States .
But it was also one of the first counties to limit gatherings and issue shelter-in-place orders , both of which helped establish a foothold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With just over 25,000 confirmed cases and 406 deaths , Santa Clara currently is in the “ moderate , ” or orange , tier of the state ’ s color-coded reopening system .
By comparison , Los Angeles is in the “ widespread , ” or purple , tier , indicating the highest risk of local infection .
“ Santa Clara County is one of the safest regions in the country because of our public health officer ’ s thoughtful , science-based approach , and because our residents have carefully complied with public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counsel James R. Williams said in a statement .
“ To keep our residents safe , and to allow schools , churches and businesses to reopen and stay open , we need everyone to do their part , ” he said .
“ We can not allow any organization in our community to willfully and repeatedly violate these orders , while everyone else , including other churches and religious organizations in the county , are complying.
” Reached by phone Monday , Williams said the court had granted the counsel ’ s request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Cavalry Chapel comply with state and local health rules .
“ We always begin with the expectation that people will follow the court order , ” Williams said , “ so we will take a look and see whether they ’ re not coming into compliance , and if not , we ’ ll take it from there .
”

Officials in Santa Clara County are pursuing legal action against a San Jose-based church accused of violating public health orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to court documents filed jointly by the Santa Clara County district attorney’s office and county counsel, Calvary Chapel has been hosting weekly indoor church services for as many as 600 people, who often stand in close proximity to one another without wearing masks or face coverings.
County officials said they spent months trying to get the church to comply with current public health orders — which limit indoor gatherings for religious or other purposes to 100 people — by offering detailed explanations of the risk and presenting safe alternatives such as drive-in religious services, all to little avail.
Advertisement
“The vast majority of religious institutions within the county have continued to practice their faith while also complying with state and county public health orders to protect the health of their congregants and the entire community, and especially the sick, elderly, and vulnerable,” the complaint says, adding that the church “refused to utilize these options.”
California Coronavirus outbreak strikes L.A. megachurch that defied public health orders Three cases have been confirmed at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, which had defied orders from Los Angeles County public health officials and a judge to stop holding indoor services.
The lawsuit names both Cavalry Chapel and its senior pastor, Mike McClure, as defendants, saying that they “have chosen to flagrantly and repeatedly” violate public health orders.
More than $350,000 in civil fines also failed to deter the church from hosting gatherings, documents show.
In livestreamed videos posted on the church’s YouTube channel, dozens of people can be seen congregating in pews and even hugging or conversing near one another on multiple occasions. The videos also show several people sharing the same microphone to sing and speak on a stage.
“Calvary’s gatherings are massive in size and pose an imminent risk of a super-spreader event,” the complaint says.
Advertisement
Church officials and congregants did not respond to requests for comment, although McClure told the Mercury News in May that he didn’t care what officials said and that he was “never again going to close the doors, ever.”
Cavalry is far from the only church to come under fire for flouting pandemic protocols. Earlier this year, a church in South Korea was linked to more than 300 cases of the coronavirus, and in April, at least 70 cases were linked to a Pentecostal church in Sacramento.
Similar scenes of infection and even death have played out in churches in Kentucky, West Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maine, North Carolina and other states, according to court documents.
California Three California churches sue Newsom over singing ban The houses of worship in Mendocino and Butte counties say the governor’s edict violates their 1st Amendment rights.
“The obligation to preserve and protect life is at the heart of all major faiths,” Santa Clara County Dist. Atty. Jeff Rosen said in a statement. “We are grateful that virtually all religious congregations in the county have adapted their services to not risk the safety of their congregants or the community. All of us are making difficult sacrifices that are saving lives.”
It’s not the first time Santa Clara County has been under a microscope: It was considered an early hot spot of the nation’s coronavirus outbreak, home to the second case in California and the seventh overall in the United States.
But it was also one of the first counties to limit gatherings and issue shelter-in-place orders, both of which helped establish a foothold in the fight against the virus. With just over 25,000 confirmed cases and 406 deaths, Santa Clara currently is in the “moderate,” or orange, tier of the state’s color-coded reopening system. By comparison, Los Angeles is in the “widespread,” or purple, tier, indicating the highest risk of local infection.
“Santa Clara County is one of the safest regions in the country because of our public health officer’s thoughtful, science-based approach, and because our residents have carefully complied with public health requirements,” Santa Clara County counsel James R. Williams said in a statement.
“To keep our residents safe, and to allow schools, churches and businesses to reopen and stay open, we need everyone to do their part,” he said. “We cannot allow any organization in our community to willfully and repeatedly violate these orders, while everyone else, including other churches and religious organizations in the county, are complying.”
Reached by phone Monday, Williams said the court had granted the counsel’s request for a temporary restraining order, mandating that Cavalry Chapel comply with state and local health rules.
“We always begin with the expectation that people will follow the court order,” Williams said, “so we will take a look and see whether they’re not coming into compliance, and if not, we’ll take it from there.”


latimes--2020-11-02--Prop. 23: What you need to know about the dialysis measure

Proposition 23 would require dialysis clinics across California to employ at least one doctor who is on-site whenever patients are receiving treatment .
Here is a rundown of the ballot measure : The dialysis industry and the healthcare union have been locked in a years-long fight , which resulted in SEIU-UHW pushing Proposition 8 in 2018 .
That failed measure would have required businesses with revenues exceeding 115 % of specified costs related to patient care to provide rebates to insurers and pay a penalty to the state .
This year ’ s measure would require dialysis clinics to employ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are receiving treatment , increase reporting requirements for dialysis infections , require clinics to obtain approval from the state ’ s public health department before closing or substantially reducing services , and bar clinics from refusing access to a patient based on their insurance .
Dialysis is a life-saving treatment for people suffering from kidney failure where machines remove a patient ’ s blood and filter it to remove waste and excess fluids before returning the blood to their body .
There are roughly 600 dialysis clinics in California , with nearly three-quarters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two companies — DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care .
Backers of Proposition 23 , the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West , say the dialysis industry favors profits over patient care by not having a doctor available in the event of complications or an emergency .
The union says its efforts to push for more oversight and higher quality care have been met with fierce — and heavily funded — campaigns aimed at protecting profits of the $ 3-billion industry in California .
Supporters say that dialysis centers provide critical life-saving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required , like hospitals , to receive approval from the state before reducing services or closing .
Opponents say the measure is unnecessary and that the added cost would lead to dialysis clinics closing , which would put patients at even greater risk .
This year , opponents have so far raised $ 105.2 million to fight Proposition 23 , according to a Times analysis of campaign contributions .
Of that amount , DaVita has contributed $ 66.8 million .
Opponents argue that there are already sufficient medical staff at clinics and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since clinics are currently required to report dialysis-infection-related information to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Opponents argue SEIU-UHW has been weaponizing the ballot measure process to force the dialysis industry to spend heavily to defend itself when the union ’ s real interest is getting workers in clinics to unionize .
California voters will again consider new dialysis center regulations with Prop .
23 More than $ 100 million spent on 2018 battle over dialysis industry profits in California

Proposition 23 would require dialysis clinics across California to employ at least one doctor who is on-site whenever patients are receiving treatment.
Here is a rundown of the ballot measure:
The measure
The dialysis industry and the healthcare union have been locked in a years-long fight, which resulted in SEIU-UHW pushing Proposition 8 in 2018. That failed measure would have required businesses with revenues exceeding 115% of specified costs related to patient care to provide rebates to insurers and pay a penalty to the state.
This year’s measure would require dialysis clinics to employ a doctor who is on-site when patients are receiving treatment, increase reporting requirements for dialysis infections, require clinics to obtain approval from the state’s public health department before closing or substantially reducing services, and bar clinics from refusing access to a patient based on their insurance.
Advertisement
Dialysis is a life-saving treatment for people suffering from kidney failure where machines remove a patient’s blood and filter it to remove waste and excess fluids before returning the blood to their body. There are roughly 600 dialysis clinics in California, with nearly three-quarters of the clinics owned or operated by two companies — DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care.
Pro arguments
Backers of Proposition 23, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, say the dialysis industry favors profits over patient care by not having a doctor available in the event of complications or an emergency.
The union says its efforts to push for more oversight and higher quality care have been met with fierce — and heavily funded — campaigns aimed at protecting profits of the $3-billion industry in California.
Supporters say that dialysis centers provide critical life-saving treatment and that clinics should therefore be required, like hospitals, to receive approval from the state before reducing services or closing.
Anti arguments
Opponents say the measure is unnecessary and that the added cost would lead to dialysis clinics closing, which would put patients at even greater risk. This year, opponents have so far raised $105.2 million to fight Proposition 23, according to a Times analysis of campaign contributions. Of that amount, DaVita has contributed $66.8 million.
Opponents argue that there are already sufficient medical staff at clinics and that reporting requirements in the measure are superfluous since clinics are currently required to report dialysis-infection-related information to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Opponents argue SEIU-UHW has been weaponizing the ballot measure process to force the dialysis industry to spend heavily to defend itself when the union’s real interest is getting workers in clinics to unionize.
Advertisement
Reading list
California voters will again consider new dialysis center regulations with Prop. 23
Times columnist George Skelton assesses Prop. 23
More than $100 million spent on 2018 battle over dialysis industry profits in California
Hospitals and union make deal to avoid ballot measure fight
A look at California’s November ballot propositions