latimes--2020-06-29--Golden State Killer pleads guilty to murders and other crimes that terrorized California

They stood in the makeshift courtroom to confront the man who had bound and brutalized them decades ago .
The masked assailant who had terrorized California as the Golden State Killer in the 1970s and ’ 80s sat hunched before them — now a thin , stooped , 74-year-old man .
Wearing orange jail clothing and a clear protective face shield , Joseph James DeAngelo Jr. admitted guilt Monday to more than a dozen murders and scores of home invasion rapes and other crimes at a court hearing in a Cal State Sacramento ballroom .
As prosecutors read aloud the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their relatives stood in the audience .
Some looked DeAngelo in the eye .
Others couldn ’ t bear to .
But all wanted him to know : They were there .
And they were not afraid .
“ We don ’ t have anything to be ashamed of , so we can stand up , and he can take a look at us , ” said Kris Pedretti , one of the earliest victims , who was 15 when she was raped in 1976 .
“ We ’ re not afraid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more powerful than us staying seated and being a Jane Doe .
Because , if he looks out , he doesn ’ t know who is who .
He will today.
” In a hoarse voice , DeAngelo pleaded guilty to 13 murders and 13 charges of kidnapping for purposes of robbery — the only crimes with which he is charged .
He also admitted to some 62 other crimes of rape and abduction for which the statutes of limitations long ago expired .
Prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s public defenders .
In return for his guilty plea , DeAngelo will be sentenced to prison for the rest of his life .
DeAngelo ’ s crimes ran from at least 1973 to 1986 and involved attacks on some 106 children , men and women in 11 counties , ranging from Sacramento to Orange .
Some 50 women and girls were raped .
Frustrated detectives and the public dubbed the unknown assailant variously as the Visalia Ransacker , the East Area Rapist , the Diamond Knot Killer and the Original Night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final named suspect until 2018 , when they used crime-scene DNA and genealogy services to identify the killer ’ s cousin and then , finally , DeAngelo , a former police officer .
“ His monikers reflect the sweeping geographical impact of his crime , ” Ho said during Monday ’ s hearing .
“ Each time , he escaped — slipping away silently into the night , leaving communities terrified for years.
” Ho said that DeAngelo , sitting in a Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Department interview room hours after his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I did all those things .
I ’ ve destroyed all their lives .
So now , I ’ ve got to pay the price.
” Monday ’ s hours-long plea hearing was scripted , allowing no room for ad-libbed confessions .
Prosecutors recounted in horrifying detail how DeAngelo would tie up his victims with shoelaces ; when assaulting couples , he would place dishes on their backs , saying he would kill them both if he heard dishes fall .
They quoted the explicit threats and sexual demands he growled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would help himself to food or beer from his victims ’ kitchens before and after raping them .
DeAngelo scarcely spoke during the hearing , answering questions from Superior Court Judge Michael G. Bowman in a low “ yes ” or “ no ” and responding to the charges against him with “ guilty ” or “ I admit.
” The judge , defendant and lawyers faced an audience of nearly 200 and banks of television cameras .
Large projection screens displayed the faces of those at the podium , and the hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a national true-crime entertainment network and multiple news programs .
Victims have been told to prepare impact statements to be read aloud during proceedings scheduled to begin Aug. 17 and to last a week before DeAngelo ’ s sentence is declared .
Though they weren ’ t able to address the court directly Monday , the victims found a way to make their presence felt .
As details about the murders of Greg Sanchez and Cheri Domingo were read aloud , Cheri ’ s daughter Debbie Domingo stood to face DeAngelo .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind her back , as the 1980 bedroom killings of her father and stepmother , Lyman and Charlene Smith , were described .
She took off her mask so she could be seen but did not make eye contact with DeAngelo .
Afterward , retired Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Detective Carol Daly stepped up to give Carole a hug .
DeAngelo ’ s whispery voice and use of a wheelchair did not evoke sympathy from Carole .
“ Rest assured , it ’ s still an act , ” she said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said DeAngelo briefly feigned insanity when arrested for shoplifting in 1979 and appeared to do so again hours after his 2018 arrest , when he blamed the crimes on someone called “ Jerry.
” “ I didn ’ t have the strength to put him out .
He went with me , ” Ho said DeAngelo uttered while in the police interview room .
“ I pushed Jerry out and had a happy life.
” Sacramento County Dist .
Atty .
Anne Marie Schubert said DeAngelo was competent to stand trial , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was malingering .
His lawyers said the wheelchair was used at the request of court security to help move DeAngelo in and out of the room .
Six family members of Janelle Cruz , DeAngelo ’ s last known victim , stood together to confront him as he pleaded guilty to murder and admitted to raping the 18-year-old .
Cruz was bludgeoned to death in 1986 with what detectives believe was a pipe wrench that had been stolen from the family ’ s backyard days earlier .
DeAngelo appeared to look down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again looked down as four relatives of Brian and Katie Maggiore , chased down and shot while taking an evening stroll in Rancho Cordova , stood just feet away from the raised stage where DeAngelo and his lawyers sat .
All the women who were raped were referred to as “ Jane Doe , ” a decision that was criticized before the hearing by some who sought to be shed of decades of social stigma over their attacks .
“ I don ’ t want that , ” Pedretti said .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person that he did this to and not as some Jane Doe.
” The Sacramento County district attorney ’ s office told Pedretti the decision had been made for her , she said , but conceded her request to be allowed to stand during the hearing when her 1976 attack was mentioned .
While details about how DeAngelo had raped her were being read , Jane Carson-Sandler walked up to the edge of the stage to face DeAngelo squarely .
He did not look at her .
Other victims silently cried , dabbing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hearing wrapped up , the daughter of one rape victim walked out singing , “ Bye-bye , Joe , bye-bye ... ” Because of COVID-19 spacing requirements , the proceeding was moved to the ballroom at Cal State Sacramento , the school from which DeAngelo received a criminal justice degree in 1972 .
The audience was composed almost entirely of victims and their families , with spaces awarded by lottery for 27 members of the media .
There was one notable empty chair — for Phyllis Henneman , the first-recognized victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who has been battling cancer for the past year , was admitted to the hospital over the weekend .
Nearly 40 victims and family members rose and stood silently to face DeAngelo when it came time to read the charges for the 1976 rape of Henneman .
From beginning to end , the crimes involving DeAngelo played out in the public eye .
The East Area Rapist drew so much media attention that he caused a public panic , prompting citizen patrols , bounties and a run on sales of guns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the series of rapes , detectives believe , the attacker began to feed off that public hysteria , and he began to instruct victims to pass on death threats to the police and future victims .
DeAngelo was fired from his Auburn , Calif. , police job in 1979 after he was caught shoplifting .
The murders that ensued as he and his wife moved to Southern California — again involving bedroom attacks and rapes — at first went unconnected .
The unknown assailant was given new local nicknames : the Diamond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later changed to the Original Night Stalker after another serial killer took that sobriquet .
Advances in forensic DNA changed the case dramatically .
In 2001 , detectives were able to link the attacks up and down the state .
The crime spree became media fodder again as a television series , then was picked up by a Los Angeles writer , Michelle McNamara , who re-branded the perpetrator as the Golden State Killer and marketed a book on her attempts to chronicle , and perhaps solve , the case .

Joseph James DeAngelo Jr., center, is helped up by his attorney, Diane Howard, as Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael G. Bowman enters the courtroom Monday. DeAngelo pleaded guilty to multiple counts of murder and other charges.
They stood in the makeshift courtroom to confront the man who had bound and brutalized them decades ago.
The masked assailant who had terrorized California as the Golden State Killer in the 1970s and ’80s sat hunched before them — now a thin, stooped, 74-year-old man.
Wearing orange jail clothing and a clear protective face shield, Joseph James DeAngelo Jr. admitted guilt Monday to more than a dozen murders and scores of home invasion rapes and other crimes at a court hearing in a Cal State Sacramento ballroom.
Advertisement
As prosecutors read aloud the gruesome details of each crime, victims and their relatives stood in the audience.
Some looked DeAngelo in the eye. Others couldn’t bear to. But all wanted him to know: They were there. And they were not afraid.
“We don’t have anything to be ashamed of, so we can stand up, and he can take a look at us,” said Kris Pedretti, one of the earliest victims, who was 15 when she was raped in 1976. “We’re not afraid of him. I think that’s more powerful than us staying seated and being a Jane Doe. Because, if he looks out, he doesn’t know who is who. He will today.”
In a hoarse voice, DeAngelo pleaded guilty to 13 murders and 13 charges of kidnapping for purposes of robbery — the only crimes with which he is charged. He also admitted to some 62 other crimes of rape and abduction for which the statutes of limitations long ago expired.
Prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty — the main request made by DeAngelo’s public defenders. In return for his guilty plea, DeAngelo will be sentenced to prison for the rest of his life.
DeAngelo’s crimes ran from at least 1973 to 1986 and involved attacks on some 106 children, men and women in 11 counties, ranging from Sacramento to Orange. Some 50 women and girls were raped.
Advertisement
Frustrated detectives and the public dubbed the unknown assailant variously as the Visalia Ransacker, the East Area Rapist, the Diamond Knot Killer and the Original Night Stalker.
Detectives did not have a final named suspect until 2018, when they used crime-scene DNA and genealogy services to identify the killer’s cousin and then, finally, DeAngelo, a former police officer.
Sacramento County Assistant Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Thien Ho called the crimes “simply staggering” in scope.
“His monikers reflect the sweeping geographical impact of his crime,” Ho said during Monday’s hearing. “Each time, he escaped — slipping away silently into the night, leaving communities terrified for years.”
Ho said that DeAngelo, sitting in a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department interview room hours after his arrest, spoke to himself, saying, “I did all those things. I’ve destroyed all their lives. So now, I’ve got to pay the price.”
Monday’s hours-long plea hearing was scripted, allowing no room for ad-libbed confessions.
Prosecutors recounted in horrifying detail how DeAngelo would tie up his victims with shoelaces; when assaulting couples, he would place dishes on their backs, saying he would kill them both if he heard dishes fall. They quoted the explicit threats and sexual demands he growled into their ears and described how he would help himself to food or beer from his victims’ kitchens before and after raping them.
DeAngelo scarcely spoke during the hearing, answering questions from Superior Court Judge Michael G. Bowman in a low “yes” or “no” and responding to the charges against him with “guilty” or “I admit.”
The judge, defendant and lawyers faced an audience of nearly 200 and banks of television cameras. Large projection screens displayed the faces of those at the podium, and the hearing was livestreamed by Sacramento County Superior Court, a national true-crime entertainment network and multiple news programs.
California Full coverage: ‘Man in the Window’ To an early love interest, Joe DeAngelo was energetic and worldly. Now, nearly 50 years later, he stands accused of an extended spasm of violence — home invasions, rapes, murders — in the 1970s and ’80s.
Victims have been told to prepare impact statements to be read aloud during proceedings scheduled to begin Aug. 17 and to last a week before DeAngelo’s sentence is declared.
Though they weren’t able to address the court directly Monday, the victims found a way to make their presence felt.
As details about the murders of Greg Sanchez and Cheri Domingo were read aloud, Cheri’s daughter Debbie Domingo stood to face DeAngelo.
Jennifer Carole also stood, hands gripped behind her back, as the 1980 bedroom killings of her father and stepmother, Lyman and Charlene Smith, were described. She took off her mask so she could be seen but did not make eye contact with DeAngelo. Afterward, retired Sacramento County Sheriff’s Detective Carol Daly stepped up to give Carole a hug.
DeAngelo’s whispery voice and use of a wheelchair did not evoke sympathy from Carole.
“Rest assured, it’s still an act,” she said, echoing the opening statement by prosecutors who said DeAngelo briefly feigned insanity when arrested for shoplifting in 1979 and appeared to do so again hours after his 2018 arrest, when he blamed the crimes on someone called “Jerry.”
“I didn’t have the strength to put him out. He went with me,” Ho said DeAngelo uttered while in the police interview room. “I pushed Jerry out and had a happy life.”
Sacramento County Dist. Atty. Anne Marie Schubert said DeAngelo was competent to stand trial, and his use of a wheelchair Monday suggested he was malingering.
His lawyers said the wheelchair was used at the request of court security to help move DeAngelo in and out of the room.
Six family members of Janelle Cruz, DeAngelo’s last known victim, stood together to confront him as he pleaded guilty to murder and admitted to raping the 18-year-old.
Cruz was bludgeoned to death in 1986 with what detectives believe was a pipe wrench that had been stolen from the family’s backyard days earlier.
DeAngelo appeared to look down, not returning their gaze.
He again looked down as four relatives of Brian and Katie Maggiore, chased down and shot while taking an evening stroll in Rancho Cordova, stood just feet away from the raised stage where DeAngelo and his lawyers sat.
All the women who were raped were referred to as “Jane Doe,” a decision that was criticized before the hearing by some who sought to be shed of decades of social stigma over their attacks.
“I don’t want that,” Pedretti said. “I want to be seen as a real person that he did this to and not as some Jane Doe.”
The Sacramento County district attorney’s office told Pedretti the decision had been made for her, she said, but conceded her request to be allowed to stand during the hearing when her 1976 attack was mentioned.
While details about how DeAngelo had raped her were being read, Jane Carson-Sandler walked up to the edge of the stage to face DeAngelo squarely. He did not look at her.
Other victims silently cried, dabbing their eyes with tissue.
As Monday’s hearing wrapped up, the daughter of one rape victim walked out singing, “Bye-bye, Joe, bye-bye ...”
Because of COVID-19 spacing requirements, the proceeding was moved to the ballroom at Cal State Sacramento, the school from which DeAngelo received a criminal justice degree in 1972. The audience was composed almost entirely of victims and their families, with spaces awarded by lottery for 27 members of the media.
There was one notable empty chair — for Phyllis Henneman, the first-recognized victim of the East Area Rapist. Henneman, who has been battling cancer for the past year, was admitted to the hospital over the weekend.
Nearly 40 victims and family members rose and stood silently to face DeAngelo when it came time to read the charges for the 1976 rape of Henneman.
From beginning to end, the crimes involving DeAngelo played out in the public eye.
The East Area Rapist drew so much media attention that he caused a public panic, prompting citizen patrols, bounties and a run on sales of guns, door locks and guard dogs. Midway through the series of rapes, detectives believe, the attacker began to feed off that public hysteria, and he began to instruct victims to pass on death threats to the police and future victims.
DeAngelo was fired from his Auburn, Calif., police job in 1979 after he was caught shoplifting. The murders that ensued as he and his wife moved to Southern California — again involving bedroom attacks and rapes — at first went unconnected. The unknown assailant was given new local nicknames: the Diamond Knot Killer and the Night Stalker, later changed to the Original Night Stalker after another serial killer took that sobriquet.
Advances in forensic DNA changed the case dramatically. In 2001, detectives were able to link the attacks up and down the state.
The crime spree became media fodder again as a television series, then was picked up by a Los Angeles writer, Michelle McNamara, who re-branded the perpetrator as the Golden State Killer and marketed a book on her attempts to chronicle, and perhaps solve, the case.


latimes--2020-06-28--Newsom orders bars closed in 7 California counties, including L.A., due to coronavirus spread

Citing the rapid pace of coronavirus spread in some parts of California , Gov .
Gavin Newsom ordered seven counties including Los Angeles on Sunday to immediately close any bars and nightspots that are open and recommended eight other counties take action on their own to close those businesses .
The order shuts down any bar , brewery or pub that sells alcoholic drinks without serving food at the same time .
Those that sell food will either be subject to the stricter dine-in rules or asked to focus on takeout and patio service .
The decision was announced in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s state public health director , Dr. Sonia Angell .
Bars in seven counties are immediately affected by the state order : Los Angeles , Fresno , Kern , San Joaquin , Tulare , Kings and Imperial .
Eight other counties have been asked by state officials to issue local health orders closing bars : Contra Costa , Santa Clara , Sacramento , Riverside , San Bernardino , Ventura , Santa Barbara and Stanislaus .
“ COVID-19 is still circulating in California , and in some parts of the state , growing stronger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
“ That ’ s why it is critical we take this step to limit the spread of the virus in the counties that are seeing the biggest increases.
” Although bars were not open in four of the counties — Contra Costa , Santa Clara , San Joaquin and Imperial — at the time of the decision , the action cites local health data that those counties should keep the establishments closed , state officials said .
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti wrote in a tweet that he supported the governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started reopening more businesses , we cautioned that we may need to change course to protect public health from this deadly virus , ” Garcetti wrote .
Los Angeles County public health officials reported 2,542 more cases of COVID-19 on Sunday , the county ’ s second-highest daily total of new cases since the pandemic began .
The list of counties affected by Sunday ’ s order was based on daily reports on the spread of the virus , state officials said .
Counties that have been on the state ’ s watchlist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked to close bars .
Those counties being ordered to close the businesses have been on the state ’ s watchlist for more than 14 days .
“ We are actively monitoring COVID-19 across the state and working closely with counties where there are increased rates and concerning patterns of transmission , ” Angell said in a written statement .
“ Closing bars in these counties is one of a number of targeted actions counties are implementing across our state to slow the virus ’ spread and reduce risk.
” The decision was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials , on data related to COVID-19 cases , hospitalization rates and what they describe as concerning patterns of transmission in those counties .
State health guidelines for reopening bars were issued June 5 , with the businesses allowed to reopen as early as June 18 .
Sunday ’ s action , however , shows that some of the counties meeting the original standard have reported worsening conditions as the days went on .
Bars , state health officials said , often operate with larger crowds of people who remove masks more frequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force customers to raise their voices — potentially spreading more airborne particles .
Contact tracing , needed to determine whom an infected person has been around , is harder when it comes to these establishments given the constant mixing of customers .
In Covina , Elvie ’ s Inn was crowded and jumping Sunday night , but staff said the bar would shut down Monday , albeit under protest .
Angie Sharma-Weisberger , whose family owns the bar , said they reopened Elvie ’ s on the first day they were permitted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tables and training their staff on protocols to reduce the risk of spread of the virus between themselves and customers .
“ They need to rethink this process going forward because COVID will obviously be part of our lives for the rest of the year , ” she said .
“ We can ’ t keep shutting down businesses at a moment ’ s notice .
This is already a difficult business to begin with.
” Sunset Beer in L.A. ’ s Echo Park had just reopened its bottle shop Friday to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not immediately open the bar , where patrons can lounge and sip craft brews for a corkage fee , saying in an Instagram post that they had hoped to work their “ way to that point carefully and safely.
” After Newsom announced his order Sunday , Sunset Beer informed customers that the business would again cease in-person shopping and revert back to a web-based ordering and pickup system .
“ Everybody has been so pleasant and understanding that it ’ s hard to believe that we are all still under quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this , ” the Instagram post said .
“ We remain optimistic for the future - it may be awhile before we can get back to normal but we hope everyone will work together and look out for each other so that we can get there SOON.
” Other Echo Park bar owners said they didn ’ t bother opening during the two-week window the governor allowed .
Physical distancing and other rules were unworkable in a bar environment , they said .
Brett Rubin of Bar Henry had anticipated he might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government in what has been a dispiriting time that has left small-business owners to fend for themselves , he said .
“ I want to give our local leaders the benefit of the doubt , and they are not getting leadership at the federal level , ” said Rubin , who called his councilman , Gil Cedillo , for direction Sunday .
“ But it feels like we are all grasping at straws .
I ’ m sure many businesses will be gone , whether today or in six months , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Newsom stands in contrast to recent choices to leave more of the decision-making authority to local officials .
The governor has said it is possible additional sectors of the state may need to scale back on reopenings , but he has been hesitant to make those decisions in Sacramento .
This month , the governor ordered all Californians to wear face coverings while in public or high-risk settings .
The alarm over the rising case numbers extends across California , where statewide cases topped 215,000 on Sunday .
Hospitalizations and infection rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several likely factors including reopenings , private social gatherings and the recent protests over George Floyd ’ s killing in Minneapolis police custody .
Some officials are cracking down on scofflaw businesses , while others are preparing to help overwhelmed hospitals .
On Friday , Newsom said he was recommending that Imperial County reinstate stricter stay-at-home orders , after it continued to report the highest per-capita case rate of any county in the state , as well as the highest rate of positive tests .
The Imperial County Board of Supervisors took no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , but local officials met with a state delegation Saturday to decide how to proceed .
In San Bernardino County , officials said that many hospitals are getting closer to reaching “ surge capacity ” and that they are making plans to open alternate care sites for patients if hospitals fill up .
In San Diego County , the health department Friday ordered an Escondido restaurant to close immediately , saying its proprietor refused to follow public health directives imposed to prevent coronavirus outbreaks .
And Belmont Park , an amusement park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afternoon by officials who said it was operating rides in violation of state guidelines .
The shutdown came on the same day that officials announced San Diego County ’ s highest number of diagnosed COVID-19 cases in a single day .
Another day of big increases in Los Angeles County coronavirus cases and hospitalizations prompted health officials Saturday to warn that the county is entering a “ critical moment ” and that some of the easing of stay-at-home orders is in jeopardy unless the trend changes .
“ If we can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandates , including wearing face coverings and distancing when around others , we jeopardize our ability to move forward on the recovery journey , ” Barbara Ferrer , the county health director , said Saturday in a statement .
“ Our collective responsibility is to take immediate action , as individuals and businesses , to reverse the trends we are experiencing .
”

John Myers, Alex Wigglesworth, Laura Newberry, Gale Holland

Patrons drink at an outside patio Sunday at the Down & Out sports bar in downtown L.A. Businesses like the Down & Out that serve food in addition to alcohol can remain open under stricter dine-in restaurant rules or asked to focus on takeout and patio service.
Citing the rapid pace of coronavirus spread in some parts of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered seven counties including Los Angeles on Sunday to immediately close any bars and nightspots that are open and recommended eight other counties take action on their own to close those businesses.
The order shuts down any bar, brewery or pub that sells alcoholic drinks without serving food at the same time. Those that sell food will either be subject to the stricter dine-in rules or asked to focus on takeout and patio service.
The decision was announced in a statement issued by the governor’s state public health director, Dr. Sonia Angell. Bars in seven counties are immediately affected by the state order: Los Angeles, Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin, Tulare, Kings and Imperial.
Eight other counties have been asked by state officials to issue local health orders closing bars: Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Sacramento, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and Stanislaus.
Advertisement
“COVID-19 is still circulating in California, and in some parts of the state, growing stronger,” Newsom said in a written statement. “That’s why it is critical we take this step to limit the spread of the virus in the counties that are seeing the biggest increases.”
Although bars were not open in four of the counties — Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Joaquin and Imperial — at the time of the decision, the action cites local health data that those counties should keep the establishments closed, state officials said.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti wrote in a tweet that he supported the governor’s order.
As we started reopening more businesses, we cautioned that we may need to change course to protect public health from this deadly virus. I support @CAGovernor’s order to close bars in L.A. County and other counties to limit the spread of COVID-19. https://t.co/Xa2A8mlF3N — MayorOfLA (@MayorOfLA) June 28, 2020
“As we started reopening more businesses, we cautioned that we may need to change course to protect public health from this deadly virus,” Garcetti wrote.
Los Angeles County public health officials reported 2,542 more cases of COVID-19 on Sunday, the county’s second-highest daily total of new cases since the pandemic began.
The list of counties affected by Sunday’s order was based on daily reports on the spread of the virus, state officials said. Counties that have been on the state’s watchlist for three to 14 days are being asked to close bars. Those counties being ordered to close the businesses have been on the state’s watchlist for more than 14 days.
“We are actively monitoring COVID-19 across the state and working closely with counties where there are increased rates and concerning patterns of transmission,” Angell said in a written statement. “Closing bars in these counties is one of a number of targeted actions counties are implementing across our state to slow the virus’ spread and reduce risk.”
Izzy Jimenez and Rebecah Giusti join friends for drinks on the patio at the Down & Out sports bar in downtown Los Angeles. (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Advertisement
The decision was based, according to state public health officials, on data related to COVID-19 cases, hospitalization rates and what they describe as concerning patterns of transmission in those counties. State health guidelines for reopening bars were issued June 5, with the businesses allowed to reopen as early as June 18.
Sunday’s action, however, shows that some of the counties meeting the original standard have reported worsening conditions as the days went on.
Bars, state health officials said, often operate with larger crowds of people who remove masks more frequently to drink, and loud music may force customers to raise their voices — potentially spreading more airborne particles. Contact tracing, needed to determine whom an infected person has been around, is harder when it comes to these establishments given the constant mixing of customers.
In Covina, Elvie’s Inn was crowded and jumping Sunday night, but staff said the bar would shut down Monday, albeit under protest.
Angie Sharma-Weisberger, whose family owns the bar, said they reopened Elvie’s on the first day they were permitted to, installing plexiglass at the bars and tables and training their staff on protocols to reduce the risk of spread of the virus between themselves and customers.
“They need to rethink this process going forward because COVID will obviously be part of our lives for the rest of the year,” she said. “We can’t keep shutting down businesses at a moment’s notice. This is already a difficult business to begin with.”
Sunset Beer in L.A.’s Echo Park had just reopened its bottle shop Friday to a limited number of customers. Its owners did not immediately open the bar, where patrons can lounge and sip craft brews for a corkage fee, saying in an Instagram post that they had hoped to work their “way to that point carefully and safely.”
After Newsom announced his order Sunday, Sunset Beer informed customers that the business would again cease in-person shopping and revert back to a web-based ordering and pickup system.
“Everybody has been so pleasant and understanding that it’s hard to believe that we are all still under quite a bit of stress due to all of this,” the Instagram post said. “We remain optimistic for the future - it may be awhile before we can get back to normal but we hope everyone will work together and look out for each other so that we can get there SOON.”
Other Echo Park bar owners said they didn’t bother opening during the two-week window the governor allowed. Physical distancing and other rules were unworkable in a bar environment, they said.
Brett Rubin of Bar Henry had anticipated he might be whipsawed again by shifting guidance from the government in what has been a dispiriting time that has left small-business owners to fend for themselves, he said.
“I want to give our local leaders the benefit of the doubt, and they are not getting leadership at the federal level,” said Rubin, who called his councilman, Gil Cedillo, for direction Sunday. “But it feels like we are all grasping at straws. I’m sure many businesses will be gone, whether today or in six months, with the lack of help.”
People walk in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)
The decision by Newsom stands in contrast to recent choices to leave more of the decision-making authority to local officials. The governor has said it is possible additional sectors of the state may need to scale back on reopenings, but he has been hesitant to make those decisions in Sacramento.
This month, the governor ordered all Californians to wear face coverings while in public or high-risk settings.
The alarm over the rising case numbers extends across California, where statewide cases topped 215,000 on Sunday. Hospitalizations and infection rates are also rising, and officials cite several likely factors including reopenings, private social gatherings and the recent protests over George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis police custody.
Some officials are cracking down on scofflaw businesses, while others are preparing to help overwhelmed hospitals.
On Friday, Newsom said he was recommending that Imperial County reinstate stricter stay-at-home orders, after it continued to report the highest per-capita case rate of any county in the state, as well as the highest rate of positive tests.
The Imperial County Board of Supervisors took no immediate action to direct businesses to shut down, but local officials met with a state delegation Saturday to decide how to proceed.
In San Bernardino County, officials said that many hospitals are getting closer to reaching “surge capacity” and that they are making plans to open alternate care sites for patients if hospitals fill up.
In San Diego County, the health department Friday ordered an Escondido restaurant to close immediately, saying its proprietor refused to follow public health directives imposed to prevent coronavirus outbreaks. And Belmont Park, an amusement park in Mission Bay, was closed Friday afternoon by officials who said it was operating rides in violation of state guidelines. The shutdown came on the same day that officials announced San Diego County’s highest number of diagnosed COVID-19 cases in a single day.
Another day of big increases in Los Angeles County coronavirus cases and hospitalizations prompted health officials Saturday to warn that the county is entering a “critical moment” and that some of the easing of stay-at-home orders is in jeopardy unless the trend changes.
“If we can’t find it in us to follow these mandates, including wearing face coverings and distancing when around others, we jeopardize our ability to move forward on the recovery journey,” Barbara Ferrer, the county health director, said Saturday in a statement. “Our collective responsibility is to take immediate action, as individuals and businesses, to reverse the trends we are experiencing.”


latimes--2020-07-01--Here are the 12 propositions on California's November ballot

California ’ s November election will feature 12 statewide ballot measures , dominated by an effort to repeal a ban on the consideration of race and gender in hiring and admissions decisions as well as complex rules on property taxation and criminal justice .
The combustible mix of proposals was presented on Wednesday by Secretary of State Alex Padilla and will be considered by what could be a record-high turnout of voters .
Eight propositions earned a spot on the Nov. 3 ballot through the collection of voter signatures by prominent interest groups .
Four were added to the list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposing to amend the California Constitution .
Here ’ s a quick glance at the key question each proposition will ask California voters to answer .
It ’ s been 16 years since California voters approved borrowing $ 3 billion to finance a state government stem cell research program .
The research organization created by that 2004 ballot measure has funded a variety of research projects and clinical trials , much of it through the University of California .
But now , the $ 3 billion has almost completely been spent .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters to authorize another round of borrowing by issuing $ 5.5 billion in government bonds to continue stem cell research .
The total cost will be higher once interest payments are figured in .
There would be a few more rules for how research funds are spent by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine , the entity created by the 2004 ballot initiative .
That includes a mandate to improve patient access to stem cell treatments .
New grant awards would also be prioritized by projects that would use matching funds from outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structure of the institute would also be changed in ways that supporters believe will improve public oversight .
This is the political battle everyone has been expecting for decades , a long-debated effort to revise the property tax rules that have existed in California since the passage of the legendary Proposition 13 in 1978 .
The ballot measure seeks to create a set of new rules for commercial property taxes while leaving the existing rules for residential property taxes in place .
Commercial property owners would see their taxes go up and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government services and schools .
The details , of course , are a little more complex .
Proposition 15 would allow market-rate values for commercial and industrial properties to be used as the basis for assessing property taxes owed and would phase in that change over three years .
Some properties occupied by small businesses would have a longer transition period to the higher taxes , while a few business property owners would be exempt from the new law .
The campaign will likely focus on whether the new tax revenue collected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as $ 12.5 billion a year under one nonpartisan analysis — would outweigh any potential economic impact of requiring some businesses to pay more to operate in California .
A variety of Democratic-leaning advocacy groups , including organized labor , believe it would .
Business groups disagree and are staunchly opposed .
This will be an expensive — and bitter — battle for your vote .
It ’ s been 24 years since California voters considered whether race , ethnicity and gender should be considered in awarding government contracts and admission to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The politics and demographics of the state were far different in 1996 , when such considerations were outlawed with Proposition 209 , an amendment to the California Constitution .
This ballot measure is only nine words long .
It would simply repeal Proposition 209 , allowing the practice often described as affirmative action to again be used in state .
It was added to the ballot by the Legislature last month , setting up a discussion about systemic racism and inequities at the same time as a national reckoning on these topics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote There is a big difference between probation and parole in criminal justice and , at least in California , when it comes to having the right to vote .
Probation is part of the sentence handed down and often allows those convicted of a felony to avoid time behind bars ; parole is an early release from prison , in advance of when the sentence ends .
But the California Constitution allows someone on probation to vote , while removing the voting rights of a parolee until the time of parole has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ballot by the Legislature , would remove that restriction and allow a person on parole to vote .
Rules barring parolees from voting vary by state , though the trend has been toward restoring those rights .
A survey conducted by a pro-voting rights group last year estimated that the ban on parolees voting in elections affects about 40,000 Californians .
Proposition 18 : Would allow some 17-year-olds to vote This constitutional amendment , placed on the ballot by the Legislature , would allow 17-year-olds to register and vote in primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of the general election in November .
At least 18 states have similar laws on the books , according to data compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures .
Supporters of the proposal argue that more of these new voters will get engaged with issues if they can participate in a full election cycle .
As it stands now , an 18-year-old Californian whose birthday was after the March 3 presidential primary missed out on the chance to pick some candidates and now gets to vote only for one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Nov. 3 ballot .
The final measure added to the Nov. 3 ballot by the Legislature replaced a similar initiative drafted by the California Assn .
of Realtors .
Both had similar goals , but this measure is a bit more far-reaching .
If approved by voters , California homeowners who are 55 or older can purchase a new home and keep their property tax payment at the same level or a reduced rate — depending on the value of the new house .
This expands a long-standing program that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The impact is clear : Older Californians who might otherwise be reluctant to change homes and pay higher property taxes would receive a new break .
Proposition 19 also expands the property tax break for older homeowners to those who lose their home to a wildfire , a program now limited to other kinds of natural disasters .
The ballot measure also cracks down on the transfer of a home from a parent to an adult child in which the property tax payment doesn ’ t change .
In 2018 , a Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families of Hollywood celebrities — who charged monthly rents much higher than the annual tax payment .
This ballot measure would narrow the tax break to homes being lived in by the owner , and would place a new limit on how much of a home ’ s value could remain unchanged when the property was transferred .
Most of the resulting revenues collected by narrowing this tax break would go toward local firefighting efforts .
California voters have weighed in twice in recent years to reduce the punishment for crimes considered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious than violent felonies .
In 2014 , Proposition 47 was passed to reduce the penalties for some theft and drug crimes .
In 2016 , Proposition 57 offered a chance of parole to some serving prison sentences for crimes that don ’ t fall on the state ’ s list of violent crimes .
Both laws have been the subject of intense debate over whether they are the right step toward reducing the prison population and promoting rehabilitation or a wrong step that has led to an escalation in crime by repeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new limits on some of the sentence reductions included in Proposition 47 and Proposition 57 .
It would allow some theft-related crimes to be charged as felonies and it would create two new crimes : serial theft ( applicable only to a select list of crimes and to defendants who have prior convictions for certain crimes ) and organized retail theft ( two or more people involved in some theft crimes within a 180-day period ) .
Both crimes could result in jail time .
Proposition 18 also would change the 2016 parole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which blocked inmates convicted of crimes including human trafficking and solicitation from being considered for early release .
It also would change some of the rules that must be followed by the state Board of Parole Hearings and community probation programs .
And it would expand DNA testing to require samples be taken from some people convicted of theft and domestic violence .
Growing concerns over California ’ s lack of affordable housing have made rent control — a government-imposed cap on what landlords can charge their tenants — a hot topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and at the state Capitol .
Last year , Gov .
Gavin Newsom signed a law restricting annual rent increases to no more than 5 % plus inflation , one of the strictest statewide caps on rent hikes in the country .
That law was written after California voters rejected a statewide rent control measure in 2018 championed by Los Angeles activist Michael Weinstein .
This year , he ’ s trying again .
Weinstein filed his new initiative just months after the defeat of his former effort , Proposition 10 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state law that limits new local rent control ordinances .
Proposition 21 is more modest , and would instead narrow that law .
If it passes , cities and counties could apply rent control to housing that is more than 15 years old , with the exception of some single-family homes .
The ballot measure would allow local governments to impose limits on rent increases when a new renter moved in .
The measure would supersede any local rent control rules .
In Los Angeles , for example , it could mean many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits on what a landlord could charge .
The bitter fight over designating a worker as an employee or an independent contractor dominated the final days of the legislative session in Sacramento last year .
The resulting law , Assembly Bill 5 , imposes new criteria to determine the correct employment status for what was estimated up to 1 million Californians .
But AB 5 wasn ’ t the end of the battle , with critics arguing that additional flexibility is needed in a variety of professions .
Few were as unhappy with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lyft , which joined forces to immediately file a ballot measure creating another set of rules that would apply to their drivers .
In its simplest form , Proposition 22 would clearly designate those drivers to be independent contractors — contrary to what Democratic legislators and labor unions that backed AB 5 intended .
But the companies wrote the ballot measure in a way that would offer those drivers several new but smaller benefits than they would have if they were actual company employees .
Drivers would be guaranteed an hourly wage — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for time spent driving ; a monthly health insurance stipend for some drivers , based on the hours they work per week ; new medical and disability benefits if a driver is injured while driving ; and new rules pertaining to rest periods , sexual harassment and criminal background checks .
In doing so , the ballot measure would distinguish the rules for app-based contractors from those applying to other sectors of the California economy .
Like the do-over ballot measure on rent control , this is the second straight November election in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approve a new law governing kidney dialysis clinics in the state .
About 600 dialysis clinics in California serve about 80,000 patients per month , according to a state legislative analysis .
To address the patients ’ needs , clinics often operate longer hours each day and are open for six days a week .
The ballot measure would require every clinic to have at least one physician present during all operating hours .
The clinics would have to offer the same level of care to all patients , regardless of whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a government-funded program such as Medi-Cal or Medicare .
Clinic administrators would have to report more information about infections among their dialysis patients , and the state Department of Public Health would have a new role in agreeing to changes at a clinic or its closure .
The initiative was placed on the ballot by a union representing healthcare workers and will be opposed by the dialysis clinics , with other healthcare industry groups also weighing in by election day .
These were largely the same forces that fought it out over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have imposed new rules on dialysis clinics and was rejected by voters .
California ’ s sweeping new consumer privacy law went into effect in January and strict state enforcement began on July 1 .
It gives individuals much more control over data collected by a variety of businesses .
Consumers must be told if data is being collected or sold , they can ask that their information be deleted and businesses are prohibited from charging more to customers who ask for more privacy .
The measure on November ’ s ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estate developer who pushed lawmakers to enact the 2018 law , goes further .
It creates a new definition in state law of data “ sharing ” in an attempt to make more businesses subject to privacy rules .
Consumers would also have new rights to limit the sharing of their personal information and to correct inaccurate information .
Penalties for companies that break the law would go up under Proposition 24 , with even higher fines for information related to children .
And a new consumer protection agency would be established in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or no on cash bail This measure is a referendum , a special kind of ballot measure asking voters whether to approve or reject a law passed by the Legislature .
In this case , it ’ s the fate of a 2018 law abolishing cash bail in California .
Companies representing the bail industry quickly gathered signatures on a referendum after the law was signed .
As a result , it ’ s been on hold and is awaiting a final decision by voters this fall .
That the bail companies sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The historic law would eliminate the industry ’ s practice of offering cash to those who can ’ t afford to pay for early release .
Instead , the law gives judges wide discretion to decide who can be released prior to trial .
Defendants deemed to be a danger to the community could be held under a policy known as “ preventive detention.
” A wide array of state officials , including California ’ s chief justice , support the law .
Civil rights groups , in particular , say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decisions based less on public safety and more on the ability to pay .
Voters who say “ yes ” on this measure will be giving their approval of the law to end cash bail .
Voters who say “ no ” will be rejecting the law and affirming the system as it has existed for decades .

California’s November election will feature 12 statewide ballot measures, dominated by an effort to repeal a ban on the consideration of race and gender in hiring and admissions decisions as well as complex rules on property taxation and criminal justice.
The combustible mix of proposals was presented on Wednesday by Secretary of State Alex Padilla and will be considered by what could be a record-high turnout of voters. Eight propositions earned a spot on the Nov. 3 ballot through the collection of voter signatures by prominent interest groups. Four were added to the list by the Legislature last month, each proposing to amend the California Constitution.
Here’s a quick glance at the key question each proposition will ask California voters to answer.
Advertisement
Proposition 14: More borrowing for stem cell research
× If Proposition 14 passes, it would allow the state to borrow more money to continue stem cell research at the state government level. It would include some rules for how those funds are spent.
It’s been 16 years since California voters approved borrowing $3 billion to finance a state government stem cell research program. The research organization created by that 2004 ballot measure has funded a variety of research projects and clinical trials, much of it through the University of California.
But now, the $3 billion has almost completely been spent. And the backers of the original effort want voters to authorize another round of borrowing by issuing $5.5 billion in government bonds to continue stem cell research. The total cost will be higher once interest payments are figured in.
There would be a few more rules for how research funds are spent by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the entity created by the 2004 ballot initiative. That includes a mandate to improve patient access to stem cell treatments. New grant awards would also be prioritized by projects that would use matching funds from outside sources. And some of the governance structure of the institute would also be changed in ways that supporters believe will improve public oversight.
Proposition 15: The battle over commercial property taxes
× If Proposition 15 passes, it would increase property taxes for businesses and corporations in California, undoing some tax breaks introduced by Proposition 13 in 1978.
This is the political battle everyone has been expecting for decades, a long-debated effort to revise the property tax rules that have existed in California since the passage of the legendary Proposition 13 in 1978.
Advertisement
The ballot measure seeks to create a set of new rules for commercial property taxes while leaving the existing rules for residential property taxes in place. Commercial property owners would see their taxes go up and the resulting tax revenue would go to local government services and schools. The details, of course, are a little more complex.
Proposition 15 would allow market-rate values for commercial and industrial properties to be used as the basis for assessing property taxes owed and would phase in that change over three years. Some properties occupied by small businesses would have a longer transition period to the higher taxes, while some business property owners would be exempt from the new law.
The campaign will likely focus on whether the new tax revenue collected by loosening Proposition 13 — perhaps as much as $12.5 billion a year under one nonpartisan analysis — would outweigh any potential economic impact of requiring some businesses to pay more to operate in California. A variety of Democratic-leaning advocacy groups, including organized labor, believe it would. Business groups disagree and are staunchly opposed. This will be an expensive — and bitter — battle for your vote.
Proposition 16: A return to affirmative action
× If Proposition 16 passes, it would bring back affirmative action, allowing race, ethnicity and gender to be considered in awarding government contracts and in deciding admission to the state’s colleges and universities.
It’s been 24 years since California voters considered whether race, ethnicity and gender should be considered in awarding government contracts and admission to the state’s colleges and universities. The politics and demographics of the state were far different in 1996, when such considerations were outlawed with Proposition 209, an amendment to the California Constitution.
This ballot measure is only nine words long. It would simply repeal Proposition 209, allowing the practice often described as affirmative action to again be used in state. It was added to the ballot by the Legislature last month, setting up a discussion about systemic racism and inequities at the same time as a national reckoning on these topics.
Proposition 17: Would allow parolees to vote
× If Proposition 17 passes, it would allow parolees – those released from prison but finishing a sentence – to vote.
There is a big difference between probation and parole in criminal justice and, at least in California, when it comes to having the right to vote. Probation is part of the sentence handed down and often allows those convicted of a felony to avoid time behind bars; parole begins upon release from prison, in advance of when the sentence ends.
But the California Constitution allows someone on probation to vote, while removing the voting rights of a parolee until the time of parole has been completed. This proposal, placed on the ballot by the Legislature, would remove that restriction and allow a person on parole to vote.
Rules barring parolees from voting vary by state, though the trend has been toward restoring those rights. A survey conducted by a pro-voting rights group last year estimated that the ban on parolees voting in elections affects about 40,000 Californians.
Proposition 18: Would allow some 17-year-olds to vote
× If Proposition 18 passes, it would allow 17-year-olds to vote in the March primary, as long as they turn 18 by the November election.
This constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by the Legislature, would allow 17-year-olds to register and vote in primary elections if they turn 18 by the time of the general election in November.
At least 18 states have similar laws on the books, according to data compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Supporters of the proposal argue that more of these new voters will get engaged with issues if they can participate in a full election cycle. As it stands now, an 18-year-old Californian whose birthday was after the March 3 presidential primary missed out on the chance to pick some candidates and now gets to vote only for one of the smaller group of hopefuls who made it to the Nov. 3 ballot.
Proposition 19: Adding and subtracting property tax breaks
× If Proposition 19 passes, it would give continued property tax breaks to Californians age 55 and older who want to move.
The final measure added to the Nov. 3 ballot by the Legislature replaced a similar initiative drafted by the California Assn. of Realtors. Both had similar goals, but this measure is a bit more far-reaching.
If approved by voters, California homeowners who are 55 or older can purchase a new home and keep their property tax payment at the same level or a reduced rate — depending on the value of the new house. This expands a long-standing program that is available only in a few counties. The impact is clear: Older Californians who might otherwise be reluctant to change homes and pay higher property taxes would receive a new break.
Proposition 19 also expands the property tax break for older homeowners to those who lose their home to a wildfire, a program now limited to other kinds of natural disasters.
The ballot measure also cracks down on the transfer of a home from a parent to an adult child in which the property tax payment doesn’t change. In 2018, a Times investigation found wealthy Californians — including the families of Hollywood celebrities — who charged monthly rents much higher than the annual tax payment. This ballot measure would narrow the tax break to homes being lived in by the owner , and would place a new limit on how much of a home’s value could remain unchanged when the property was transferred. Most of the resulting revenues collected by narrowing this tax break would go toward local firefighting efforts.
Proposition 20: Tougher on parole, property crimes
× If Proposition 20 passes, it would restrict the option of early parole for more crimes and increase penalties for certain theft-related crimes.
California voters have weighed in twice in recent years to reduce the punishment for crimes considered by existing law to be among those less serious than violent felonies. In 2014, Proposition 47 was passed to reduce the penalties for some theft and drug crimes. In 2016, Proposition 57 offered a chance of parole to some serving prison sentences for crimes that don’t fall on the state’s list of violent crimes.
Both laws have been the subject of intense debate over whether they are the right step toward reducing the prison population and promoting rehabilitation or a wrong step that has led to an escalation in crime by repeat offenders.
This ballot measure would place new limits on some of the sentence reductions included in Proposition 47 and Proposition 57. It would allow some theft-related crimes to be charged as felonies and it would create two new crimes: serial theft (applicable only to a select list of crimes and to defendants who have prior convictions for certain crimes) and organized retail theft (two or more people involved in some theft crimes within a 180-day period). Both crimes could result in jail time.
Proposition 20 also would change the 2016 parole law championed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, which blocked inmates convicted of crimes including human trafficking and solicitation from being considered for early release. It also would change some of the rules that must be followed by the state Board of Parole Hearings and community probation programs. And it would expand DNA testing to require samples be taken from some people convicted of theft and domestic violence.
Proposition 21: Rent control redux
× If Proposition 21 passes, it would allow cities and counties in California to implement even stricter rent control policies.
Growing concerns over California’s lack of affordable housing have made rent control — a government-imposed cap on what landlords can charge their tenants — a hot topic in the state’s biggest cities and at the state Capitol. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law restricting annual rent increases to no more than 5% plus inflation, one of the strictest statewide caps on rent hikes in the country.
That law was written after California voters rejected a statewide rent control measure in 2018 championed by Los Angeles activist Michael Weinstein. This year, he’s trying again. Weinstein filed his new initiative just months after the defeat of his former effort, Proposition 10.
The 2018 ballot measure would have rescinded a state law that limits new local rent control ordinances. Proposition 21 is more modest, and would instead narrow that law. If it passes, cities and counties could apply rent control to housing that is more than 15 years old, with the exception of some single-family homes. The ballot measure would allow local governments to impose limits on rent increases when a new renter moved in.
The measure would supersede any local rent control rules. In Los Angeles, for example, it could mean many more housing units would be eligible for limits on what a landlord could charge.
Proposition 22: Special workplace rules for the gig economy
× If Proposition 22 passes, it would allow companies like Uber and Lyft to continue to consider their workers as independent contractors, as opposed to full-time employees.
The bitter fight over designating a worker as an employee or an independent contractor dominated the final days of the legislative session in Sacramento last year. The resulting law, Assembly Bill 5, imposes new criteria to determine the correct employment status for what was estimated up to 1 million Californians.
But AB 5 wasn’t the end of the battle, with critics arguing that additional flexibility is needed in a variety of professions. Few were as unhappy with the law as app-based companies Uber and Lyft, which joined forces to immediately file a ballot measure creating another set of rules that would apply to their drivers.
In its simplest form, Proposition 22 would clearly designate those drivers to be independent contractors — contrary to what Democratic legislators and labor unions that backed AB 5 intended. But the companies wrote the ballot measure in a way that would offer those drivers several new but smaller benefits than they would have if they were actual company employees.
Drivers would be guaranteed an hourly wage — slightly above the state minimum wage — for time spent driving; a monthly health insurance stipend for some drivers, based on the hours they work per week; new medical and disability benefits if a driver is injured while driving; and new rules pertaining to rest periods, sexual harassment and criminal background checks.
In doing so, the ballot measure would distinguish the rules for app-based contractors from those applying to other sectors of the California economy.
Proposition 23: Kidney dialysis clinic rules revisited
× If Proposition 23 passes, it would increase rules for kidney dialysis centers, such as requiring at least one physician to remain on-site during a dialysis center’s operating hours.
Like the do-over ballot measure on rent control, this is the second straight November election in which California voters will be asked to approve a new law governing kidney dialysis clinics in the state.
About 600 dialysis clinics in California serve about 80,000 patients per month, according to a state legislative analysis. To address the patients’ needs, clinics often operate longer hours each day and are open for six days a week.
The ballot measure would require every clinic to have at least one physician present during all operating hours. The clinics would have to offer the same level of care to all patients, regardless of whether the treatment is paid for by private insurance or a government-funded program such as Medi-Cal or Medicare. Clinic administrators would have to report more information about infections among their dialysis patients, and the state Department of Public Health would have a new role in agreeing to changes at a clinic or its closure.
The initiative was placed on the ballot by a union representing healthcare workers and will be opposed by the dialysis clinics, with other healthcare industry groups also weighing in by election day. These were largely the same forces that fought it out over Proposition 8 in 2018, which also would have imposed new rules on dialysis clinics and was rejected by voters.
Proposition 24: New consumer privacy rules
× If Proposition 24 passes, it would make changes to California’s new consumer privacy law, allowing consumers new rights to limit the sharing of their personal information.
California’s sweeping new consumer privacy law went into effect in January and strict state enforcement began on July 1. It gives individuals much more control over data collected by a variety of businesses. Consumers must be told if data is being collected or sold, they can ask that their information be deleted and businesses are prohibited from charging more to customers who ask for more privacy.
The measure on November’s ballot, championed by a San Francisco real estate developer who pushed lawmakers to enact the 2018 law, goes further. It creates a new definition in state law of data “sharing” in an attempt to make more businesses subject to privacy rules. Consumers would also have new rights to limit the sharing of their personal information and to correct inaccurate information.
Penalties for companies that break the law would go up under Proposition 24, with even higher fines for information related to children. And a new consumer protection agency would be established in state government.
Proposition 25: Yes or no on cash bail
× If Proposition 25 passes, it would eliminate cash bail, which requires suspects to pay a cash bond to be released from jail while waiting for their trial.
This measure is a referendum, a special kind of ballot measure asking voters whether to approve or reject a law passed by the Legislature. In this case, it’s the fate of a 2018 law abolishing cash bail in California.
Companies representing the bail industry quickly gathered signatures on a referendum after the law was signed. As a result, it’s been on hold and is awaiting a final decision by voters this fall.
That the bail companies sought a second opinion isn’t surprising. The historic law would eliminate the industry’s practice of offering cash to those who can’t afford to pay for early release. Instead, the law gives judges wide discretion to decide who can be released prior to trial. Defendants deemed to be a danger to the community could be held under a policy known as “preventive detention.”
A wide array of state officials, including California’s chief justice, support the law. Civil rights groups, in particular, say the cash bail system too often has led to decisions based less on public safety and more on the ability to pay.
Voters who say “yes” on this measure will be giving their approval of the law to end cash bail. Voters who say “no” will be rejecting the law and affirming the system as it has existed for decades.


latimes--2020-07-01--As coronavirus cases surge, L.A. postpones plans to ticket during street sweeping

Amid a surge in COVID-19 cases , Los Angeles lawmakers said Wednesday that parking officials will not resume writing tickets during street sweeping until August at the earliest .
The City Council voted 13 to 1 to extend L.A. 's relaxed parking rules , which took effect in March when the pandemic stay-at-home order was first imposed .
The city will not ticket vehicles that are parked in rush-hour and anti-gridlock zones or in residential areas during street sweeping until Aug. 1 at the earliest , officials said .
Nor will parking officials ticket vehicles with expired registration .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement last week that parking enforcement would resume July 6 , a decision greeted with dread in areas where street parking is scarce and far more people are home than usual .
Councilman Mitch O ’ Farrell , who represents parts of Silver Lake , Atwater Village and Hollywood , said he had received an “ avalanche ” of comments from unhappy residents after the city announced that street sweeping tickets would return .
“ More people are at home now than ever , ” O ’ Farrell said , who introduced the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We don ’ t even know what the next day , two , three , four , five days are going to bring , much less what will happen next week , when parking enforcement resumes its regular functions.
” California ’ s reopening has stalled as COVID-19 cases continue to rise , particularly in Los Angeles County .
Local health officials now estimate that 1 in 140 county residents are unknowingly infected with the virus , a massive increase since last week ’ s projection of 1 in 400 .
Gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles County and six other counties to close their bars and nightspots , which had been allowing indoor dining under reduced capacity rules .
On Wednesday , Newsom banned indoor dining at restaurants in 19 counties , including Los Angeles .
Los Angeles is still enforcing some parking rules , including ticketing vehicles left at expired meters .
Mayor Eric Garcetti has said that focus is designed to encourage turnover outside restaurants and other businesses that are relying on curbside pickup and delivery services .
Residents who can prove they are unemployed can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tickets waived , provided they pay the base fine amount by the end of the year , the city said .
People who are otherwise facing financial hardship may also qualify for a payment plan , the city said .
Anyone seeking a waiver or financial assistance should call the Transportation Department ’ s hotline at ( 866 ) 561-9742 .

Street sweeping tickets will not reappear in Los Angeles until August at the earliest, officials said Wednesday.
Amid a surge in COVID-19 cases, Los Angeles lawmakers said Wednesday that parking officials will not resume writing tickets during street sweeping until August at the earliest.
The City Council voted 13 to 1 to extend L.A.’s relaxed parking rules, which took effect in March when the pandemic stay-at-home order was first imposed.
The city will not ticket vehicles that are parked in rush-hour and anti-gridlock zones or in residential areas during street sweeping until Aug. 1 at the earliest, officials said. Nor will parking officials ticket vehicles with expired registration.
Advertisement
The decision overturns the Transportation Department’s announcement last week that parking enforcement would resume July 6, a decision greeted with dread in areas where street parking is scarce and far more people are home than usual.
Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, who represents parts of Silver Lake, Atwater Village and Hollywood, said he had received an “avalanche” of comments from unhappy residents after the city announced that street sweeping tickets would return.
“More people are at home now than ever,” O’Farrell said, who introduced the motion to extend the relaxed enforcement. “We don’t even know what the next day, two, three, four, five days are going to bring, much less what will happen next week, when parking enforcement resumes its regular functions.”
California’s reopening has stalled as COVID-19 cases continue to rise, particularly in Los Angeles County. Local health officials now estimate that 1 in 140 county residents are unknowingly infected with the virus, a massive increase since last week’s projection of 1 in 400.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday ordered Los Angeles County and six other counties to close their bars and nightspots, which had been allowing indoor dining under reduced capacity rules. On Wednesday, Newsom banned indoor dining at restaurants in 19 counties, including Los Angeles.
Advertisement
Los Angeles is still enforcing some parking rules, including ticketing vehicles left at expired meters. Mayor Eric Garcetti has said that focus is designed to encourage turnover outside restaurants and other businesses that are relying on curbside pickup and delivery services.
Residents who can prove they are unemployed can have the late fees for their parking tickets waived, provided they pay the base fine amount by the end of the year, the city said. People who are otherwise facing financial hardship may also qualify for a payment plan, the city said.
Anyone seeking a waiver or financial assistance should call the Transportation Department’s hotline at (866) 561-9742.


latimes--2020-07-01--What to know as California halts indoor dining, shutters other businesses

Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s decision to roll back more reopenings Wednesday halted indoor service at restaurants and other businesses in Los Angeles and 18 other counties .
The move is an expanded effort to slow the sudden spike in coronavirus cases and comes days after the state ordered bars closed in several counties .
Here is what you need to know about the new order : What counties are covered by the order ?
Why is the state taking this action ?
Newsom told reporters at a news conference Wednesday that the changes were being implemented because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases and hospitalizations in 19 counties and the need to focus on locations with the greatest risks of spread .
“ This doesn ’ t mean restaurants are shut down , ” Newsom said .
“ It means that we ’ re trying to take the activities , as many activities as we can — these mixed activities , these concentrated activities — and move them outdoors , which is a way of mitigating the spread of this virus.
” In its justification for the order , state health officials cited several factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The sectors at issue in this document are all high risk of transmission due to a number of features of the businesses and the behaviors that occur within them .
These sectors , foundationally , are settings where groups convene and may mix with others for prolonged periods of time without appropriate protective equipment , such as a face covering .
For example , it is difficult to consistently wear a face covering in a restaurant .
Additionally , physical movement within the establishment , duration of time spent in the establishment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and groups outside one ’ s household are all significant in these sectors , which substantially elevates the risk of transmission even where face coverings can be worn.
” • “ The risk is particularly high in indoor settings .
Reinstituting indoor closures among these sectors is not only important because of data from counties on the monitoring list , but because the science of disease transmission and from recent studies have shown that the transmissions is greater in indoor settings due to the release of infectious particles into the air when someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sings , which is exacerbated in indoor spaces particularly when lacking appropriate ventilation .
Furthermore , in some of these sectors centered on eating and drinking , compliance with face coverings is not possible for the full duration of time someone spends in these establishments .
Additionally , the workforce of these sectors face higher exposure to diseases transmission because of the environment in which they work.
” • “ Alcohol consumption slows brain activity , reduces inhibition , and impairs judgment , factors which contribute to reduced compliance with recommended core personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of face coverings and maintaining six feet of distance from people outside of one ’ s own household , making outdoor operations for brewpubs , breweries , bars , and pubs challenging , further creating opportunities for virus transmission and thus need for closure .
Additionally , there is a growing body of evidence tracing large COVID-19 outbreaks in both urban and rural states , to indoor and outdoor operations of bars .
”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to roll back more reopenings Wednesday halted indoor service at restaurants and other businesses in Los Angeles and 18 other counties.
The move is an expanded effort to slow the sudden spike in coronavirus cases and comes days after the state ordered bars closed in several counties.
Here is what you need to know about the new order:
What businesses are impacted?
Advertisement
Indoor dine-in restaurants
Indoor wineries and tasting rooms
Indoor family entertainment centers
Indoor movie theaters
Indoor zoos and museums
Indoor card rooms
What counties are covered by the order?
• Contra Costa
• Fresno
• Glenn
• Imperial
• Kern
• Kings
• Los Angeles
• Merced
• Orange
• Riverside
• Sacramento
• San Bernardino
• San Joaquin
• Santa Barbara
• Santa Clara
• Solano
• Stanislaus
• Tulare
• Ventura
Why is the state taking this action?
Newsom told reporters at a news conference Wednesday that the changes were being implemented because of a surge in the number of coronavirus cases and hospitalizations in 19 counties and the need to focus on locations with the greatest risks of spread.
Advertisement
“This doesn’t mean restaurants are shut down,” Newsom said. “It means that we’re trying to take the activities, as many activities as we can — these mixed activities, these concentrated activities — and move them outdoors, which is a way of mitigating the spread of this virus.”
In its justification for the order, state health officials cited several factors in the decision including:
• “The sectors at issue in this document are all high risk of transmission due to a number of features of the businesses and the behaviors that occur within them. These sectors, foundationally, are settings where groups convene and may mix with others for prolonged periods of time without appropriate protective equipment, such as a face covering. For example, it is difficult to consistently wear a face covering in a restaurant. Additionally, physical movement within the establishment, duration of time spent in the establishment and the degree of social mixing among individuals and groups outside one’s household are all significant in these sectors, which substantially elevates the risk of transmission even where face coverings can be worn.”
• “The risk is particularly high in indoor settings. Reinstituting indoor closures among these sectors is not only important because of data from counties on the monitoring list, but because the science of disease transmission and from recent studies have shown that the transmissions is greater in indoor settings due to the release of infectious particles into the air when someone speaks, coughs, sneezes, or sings, which is exacerbated in indoor spaces particularly when lacking appropriate ventilation. Furthermore, in some of these sectors centered on eating and drinking, compliance with face coverings is not possible for the full duration of time someone spends in these establishments. Additionally, the workforce of these sectors face higher exposure to diseases transmission because of the environment in which they work.”
• “Alcohol consumption slows brain activity, reduces inhibition, and impairs judgment, factors which contribute to reduced compliance with recommended core personal protective measures, such as the mandatory use of face coverings and maintaining six feet of distance from people outside of one’s own household, making outdoor operations for brewpubs, breweries, bars, and pubs challenging, further creating opportunities for virus transmission and thus need for closure. Additionally, there is a growing body of evidence tracing large COVID-19 outbreaks in both urban and rural states, to indoor and outdoor operations of bars.”


latimes--2020-07-01--A rural Northern California county had few COVID-19 cases, until an inmate transfer led to a large p

A rural Northern California county had few COVID-19 cases, until an inmate transfer led to a large prison outbreak

For months , rural Lassen County held a pandemic distinction as one of the only counties in California with zero confirmed cases of COVID-19 .
The sparsely populated Northern California county , which did not report its first coronavirus case until May 22 , was one of the first in the state to ease social restrictions and reopen public life .
But now , a major outbreak among inmates at a state prison in Susanville , linked to the transfer of inmates from San Quentin State Prison , has frustrated local officials who say the state ’ s movement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their community .
“ The sentiment is really of disappointment with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation , to disregard the impact on our community with regard to their policy of moving inmates around , ” said Richard Egan , the county spokesman .
As of Wednesday , there were 214 cases at the California Correctional Center in Susanville .
There also were five confirmed cases at the adjoining High Desert State Prison .
Outside of the prisons , Lassen County has reported just 14 cases since the pandemic began .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitalizations , Egan said .
Local officials have struggled to get information from the state about the prison outbreak , and the county has no jurisdiction over the prison and was not consulted about the transfer , Egan said .
“ It ’ s improving now after the horse is out of the barn , but communication has not been great , ” he said .
State Sen. Brian Dahle ( R-Bieber ) told The Times that the California Dept .
of Corrections and Rehabilitation “ hasn ’ t been very transparent ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about COVID-19 cases overwhelming Lassen County ’ s single hospital , Banner Lassen Medical Center , a 25-bed facility in Susanville .
“ At this time , we should not be moving inmates around , ” Dahle said .
“ It ’ s unfortunate , because our community had a very low rate of people being infected with COVID , and here we ’ re dealing with an outbreak .
I ’ m frustrated .
... We were doing everything right.
” Dahle noted that the prisons are the biggest employers in Lassen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from neighboring Modoc County ( the only county in California with zero reported cases ) and Plumas County to go to work there .
He worried that the outbreak would spread beyond prison walls and across county lines .
An estimated 60 % of staff at the California Correctional Center and High Desert Prison live in Lassen County , Egan said .
The rest commute from neighboring counties and across the Nevada border .
At least four prison staffers have tested positive , he said .
If they reside in another county , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
On June 8 , the state transferred several inmates from San Quentin to the California Correctional Center , Egan said .
Three inmates who tested negative for COVID-19 before leaving the Marin County prison were not quarantined upon their arrival in the Susanville facility and were placed among the general inmate population , Egan said .
Those inmates were tested again , and the results came back positive .
The cases quickly surpassed 200 .
Egan said that , as far as he knows , the moving of an inmate from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ High Desert State Prison facility led to the five known cases in that prison .
In a statement to the Times , Dana Simas , a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation , said that on June 22 , the state “ restricted any movement of the incarcerated population between and throughout all institutions to essential transfers only to mitigate spread of the virus.
” About a third of San Quentin ’ s inmates have been infected with the coronavirus after a transfer of prisoners from a Southern California correctional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , San Quentin had escaped any coronavirus outbreak until early June .
But 121 inmates were moved there on May 30 from the California Institution for Men in Chino , an early hotbed of coronavirus cases where 16 inmates have died .
The transfers ignited an outbreak at San Quentin , where 1,135 inmates have tested positive for the virus .
On Monday , Marin County officials revealed that a death row inmate found dead last week in his cell had tested positive for COVID-19 .
In a June 25 letter to Ralph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ department , Dahle and his wife , Republican state Assemblywoman Megan Dahle , said they had “ grave concerns about the inadequate communication , planning and protocols ” that led to the “ explosive outbreak ” at the Susanville prison .
Lassen County , they wrote , previously requested assistance from the state corrections department during the pandemic but was told that state prison staff “ would not be available due to bargaining unit contract restrictions.
” The Dahles asked if the state was going to do anything to bolster the county ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and questioned why the corrections department was not participating in meetings with local health officials .
In Lassen County , health officials knew early on that the prisons were “ a major risk factor ” and prepared as best they could , Egan told the Times .
He said he hopes the sudden spike in cases does not cause Lassen County to be placed on the state ’ s coronavirus watchlist and that it does not force the county to scale back its reopening .
“ Our community has done a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we ’ re continuing to do that , ” he said .
“ We ’ ll get through this .
It ’ s just frustrating .
”

For months, rural Lassen County held a pandemic distinction as one of the only counties in California with zero confirmed cases of COVID-19.
The sparsely populated Northern California county, which did not report its first coronavirus case until May 22, was one of the first in the state to ease social restrictions and reopen public life.
But now, a major outbreak among inmates at a state prison in Susanville, linked to the transfer of inmates from San Quentin State Prison, has frustrated local officials who say the state’s movement of infected prisoners now poses a grave danger to their community.
Advertisement
“The sentiment is really of disappointment with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to disregard the impact on our community with regard to their policy of moving inmates around,” said Richard Egan, the county spokesman.
As of Wednesday, there were 214 cases at the California Correctional Center in Susanville. There also were five confirmed cases at the adjoining High Desert State Prison.
Outside of the prisons, Lassen County has reported just 14 cases since the pandemic began. There have been no deaths and no hospitalizations, Egan said.
Local officials have struggled to get information from the state about the prison outbreak, and the county has no jurisdiction over the prison and was not consulted about the transfer, Egan said.
“It’s improving now after the horse is out of the barn, but communication has not been great,” he said.
State Sen. Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) told The Times that the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation “hasn’t been very transparent” with local leaders and that he worried about COVID-19 cases overwhelming Lassen County’s single hospital, Banner Lassen Medical Center, a 25-bed facility in Susanville.
Advertisement
“At this time, we should not be moving inmates around,” Dahle said. “It’s unfortunate, because our community had a very low rate of people being infected with COVID, and here we’re dealing with an outbreak. I’m frustrated. ... We were doing everything right.”
Dahle noted that the prisons are the biggest employers in Lassen County, and people drive long distances from neighboring Modoc County (the only county in California with zero reported cases) and Plumas County to go to work there. He worried that the outbreak would spread beyond prison walls and across county lines.
An estimated 60% of staff at the California Correctional Center and High Desert Prison live in Lassen County, Egan said. The rest commute from neighboring counties and across the Nevada border.
At least four prison staffers have tested positive, he said. If they reside in another county, their cases are counted among the caseloads there.
On June 8, the state transferred several inmates from San Quentin to the California Correctional Center, Egan said. Three inmates who tested negative for COVID-19 before leaving the Marin County prison were not quarantined upon their arrival in the Susanville facility and were placed among the general inmate population, Egan said.
Those inmates were tested again, and the results came back positive. The cases quickly surpassed 200. Egan said that, as far as he knows, the moving of an inmate from the California Correctional Center to the adjacent High Desert State Prison facility led to the five known cases in that prison.
In a statement to the Times, Dana Simas, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said that on June 22, the state “restricted any movement of the incarcerated population between and throughout all institutions to essential transfers only to mitigate spread of the virus.”
About a third of San Quentin’s inmates have been infected with the coronavirus after a transfer of prisoners from a Southern California correctional facility overrun by the illness.
Unlike other prisons in California , San Quentin had escaped any coronavirus outbreak until early June. But 121 inmates were moved there on May 30 from the California Institution for Men in Chino, an early hotbed of coronavirus cases where 16 inmates have died.
The transfers ignited an outbreak at San Quentin, where 1,135 inmates have tested positive for the virus. On Monday, Marin County officials revealed that a death row inmate found dead last week in his cell had tested positive for COVID-19.
In a June 25 letter to Ralph Diaz, secretary of the state corrections department, Dahle and his wife, Republican state Assemblywoman Megan Dahle, said they had “grave concerns about the inadequate communication, planning and protocols” that led to the “explosive outbreak” at the Susanville prison.
Lassen County, they wrote, previously requested assistance from the state corrections department during the pandemic but was told that state prison staff “would not be available due to bargaining unit contract restrictions.”
The Dahles asked if the state was going to do anything to bolster the county’s “bare-bones emergency medical services capacity” and questioned why the corrections department was not participating in meetings with local health officials.
In Lassen County, health officials knew early on that the prisons were “a major risk factor” and prepared as best they could, Egan told the Times.
He said he hopes the sudden spike in cases does not cause Lassen County to be placed on the state’s coronavirus watchlist and that it does not force the county to scale back its reopening.
“Our community has done a great job at addressing the COVID issue, and we’re continuing to do that,” he said. “We’ll get through this. It’s just frustrating.”