Jerry Brown, the governor of California, made no bones about the dangers of climate change at a public hearing last week, calling it a “threat to organized human existence.” As the Trump Administration removes the U.S. from the frontline in the battle against climate change, cities and states have stepped forward to fill the void.

Monday evening, after hours of intense debate and an energized push from Brown himself, California lawmakers voted to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2030. The current system, implemented in 2012, is set to expire in 2020. Extending the program, which Brown has been trying to spread to other states, has galvanized critics from two disparate corners: liberals and environmental groups who think it is too cautious, and Republicans who see it as a job killer.

But Brown, at 79 and nearing the end of his fourth term in office, has argued cap-and-trade is an effective way to combat carbon emissions while allowing economic growth.

“America is facing not just a climate crisis with the rest of the world, we are facing a political crisis,” Brown told lawmakers at the four-hour public hearing last week, after introducing the cap-and-trade extension bill. “Can democracy actually work? Is there a sufficient consensus that we can govern ourselves? That, I submit to you, is an open question.”

Brown has positioned himself as a buffer against President Donald Trump’s systematic unraveling of the Obama Administration’s climate regulations. In the wake of Trump’s decision to remove the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, Brown and a number of other governors and mayors have soothed concerns at home and abroad. Brown recently traveled to China to talk climate change, and will attend a climate summit in Germany later this year.

While other governors and mayors have pledged to double-down on green initiatives and other carbon-cutting regulations, Brown has remained steadfast in his cap-and-trade approach. Championed by those who would like to fight climate change with a market-based system, cap-and-trade issues limited permits to carbon-producing companies, dictating how much carbon they can emit in a given time period. Some permits are free, others are auctioned off; companies can then sell, buy, and trade permits among each other.

But Brown’s extension effort received pushback from environmental groups and state lawmakers. Senate Republicans sent a letter last week to Brown, expressing their opposition to the bill, which is paired with another measure that seeks to improve air quality.

“We are committed to protecting and enhancing California’s environment,” a group of state Republican lawmakers wrote, adding that the cap-and-trade program is a “crushing blow to California residents and small business negatively impacting their quality of life.”

California progressives have also criticized the plan, though for a vastly different reason: many say it does not do enough to halt carbon emissions. Environmental justice groups see Brown’s bill as a capitulation to the oil and gas industry, and argue it includes too many compromises to pro-industry Republicans and moderate Democrats.

“It’s California climate policy that’s been written by big oil,” Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, recently said about the bill. “At a time when all eyes are on California, we have to stand strong and say this is not something we can support.”

After the bill passed Monday night, Brown applauded Californians for standing against “the existential threat of our time” by extending the cap-and-trade program. He also thanked both Republicans and Democrats who “set aside their differences, came together and took courageous action.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Extends Cap-and-Trade Program Through 2030 appeared first on Law Street.

After years of debate, California Governor Jerry Brown has finally given in to liberal legislators and advocates of the poor by eliminating a California welfare rule that many believe inordinately targets poor mothers of color. The rule goes by many names–the “Welfare Queen” rule, the family cap, and formally in California as the Maximum Family Grant Policy–and prevents families from receiving more benefits if they have additional children while receiving benefits.

California’s revocation of the policy is projected to cost the state a projected $220 million each year, and will eventually be funded by an account for inflationary increases to welfare benefits. With Brown’s decision, California joins a list of seven other states to repeal the rule, which once existed in some form or another in nearly half of U.S. states.

The rule is a byproduct of the criminalization of welfare recipients that began in part with Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign rhetoric:

Reagan ran a campaign largely based on the anecdotal evidence of a few criminals who defrauded the U.S. welfare system, with the conclusion that welfare fraud was a pervasive plague in the U.S. that could only be eliminated by cracking down on the “welfare state.”

The stereotype of the “welfare queen” has persisted as a woman, usually black, on welfare who persistently has children, does not work, and lies to receive greater handouts.

“Welfare queen” rules emerged in the early 1990’s as a solution, with the belief that if women were to not receive additional benefits for additional children, that they would stop having additional children. Not only have studies found that the rules have no distinguishable impact on birth rates among mothers who receive benefits and are subject to a family cap, but the rules have been criticized as degrading and dehumanizing to poor mothers.

Opponents have long held that children shouldn’t be penalized just because they were born into a poor family, while advocates of the policy claim that the estimated additional $130 families will be receiving will not be enough to lift families out of poverty. But ultimately, California legislators decided that the policy was ineffective in its goals, perpetuated unfair stereotypes, and punished children in deep poverty for elements out of their control.

However, this is just a first step to de-constructing the “welfare queen” image, which is unfairly projected on poor mothers.

There are still many other states with family cap rules. Additionally, public perception of mothers and families on welfare is often flawed. For example, pervasive myths such as welfare recipients buying alcohol, cigarettes, and fast food with SNAP benefits are simply untrue. SNAP benefits only apply to non-ready-to-eat food items with small exceptions for eligible disabled, homeless, or elderly recipients who can purchase select restaurant items in a few states.

Similarly, one of the most common welfare recipient stereotypes is the lazy non-working adult who is on welfare for years without ever working. Contrarily, 20 states have work requirements for TANF (the program for cash welfare assistance) recipients, including California.

The myth that most people using welfare stay on it for years also isn’t true. Many areas only allow single adults to receive SNAP for three months while unemployed, and many places have a lifetime limit on how long an individual can receive welfare benefits–California’s is 48 months.

California and many other states have a long way to go in deconstructing the harmful stereotypes of poor mothers and families they have perpetuated. But California has shown that the first step is possible, and that strong legislatures and citizens prioritize the livelihood, dignity, and opportunity of poor communities.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fall of the “Welfare Queen” in California appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

North Korea Says Trump Is The Bomb

An op-ed in North Korea’s state sponsored DPRK Today had nothing but glowing praise for Republican nominee Donald Trump. It called him a “wise politician” and “far-sighted presidential candidate.” This may have a lot to do with Trump’s serious proposal to remove American troops from South Korea if the country does not pay defense costs. The paper encouraged South Korea to avoid paying costs so that the countries may unify in the future without Washington’s meddling. North Korea also urged Americans not to vote for Hillary Clinton and criticized her nuclear weapon policy.

When the US is being trolled by North Korea, you know that it is a rather odd election season. https://t.co/RAWfHsrEj7

— Charles Hawley (@charles_hawley) June 1, 2016

Was Jerry Brown’s Clinton Endorsement Genuine or Desperate?

Answer: genuinely desperate. California Governor Brown delivered a “lukewarm” letter supporting Hillary Clinton for president. He said she was the only one who could defeat Trump. Jerry also gave a sincere nod to Sanders, quoting his “1 percent” platform. All in all, the governor seems to be echoing the same sentiments as many voters: “Hillary is experienced and I am feeling the Bern but we can’t let Trump win.”

Jerry Brown’s endorsement of Hillary is based on a simple calculation: She’s going to win. https://t.co/GdlzV1cgoM

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) May 31, 2016

People have feelings about this Texas town selfie statue

America’s new favorite pastime has been immortalized with this “selfie statue.” The statue, located in Sugarland, Texas, cost a smooth $35,500. And many were left wondering if there was a better use for those funds like, IDK, making texting while driving illegal, as the town of Sugarland is apparently having problems making that a priority. In the meantime, people are hitting up the selfie statue for selfies at lunch.

THERE’S A SELFIE STATUE IN MY TOWN. pic.twitter.com/hEV0MLM04L

— ¯\( ˘͡ ˘̯)/¯ (@Gemrick) May 28, 2016

Meet David French, Bill Kristol’s Third Party Write In

His name has been floating around and rumors say he could be our chance for a third party candidate. David French was recently called upon by Bill Kristol to enter the 2016 race as an independent. Move over Trump, looks like we have another winner on the stage. That is if David French, a conservative lawyer and National Review columnist, decides to take on the challenge. Looks like he’ll be facing some tough questions, though:

But what would David French have done about the gorilla?

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) May 31, 2016

Soccer Drama…Again

What the flying f***? The U.S. Soccer Federation has asked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to dismiss a complaint made by the National Women’s Soccer team over unfair wages. The Federation claims that the wage difference is based off of factors other than discrimination. Popularity and fandom play a role in how much soccer teams are paid. Which really shouldn’t make a difference because the women’s team plays just as much as the men’s, and have often won more.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been just over a year since the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, but the United States is still reeling from the revelations about police brutality and the issues in our criminal justice system. One of the most controversial aspects of Brown’s case involved the choice of the local grand jury not to indict the police officer who shot him, Officer Darren Wilson. The aftermath of that non-indictment, among others, sparked a new law in California that was just signed by Governor Jerry Brown. Under the law, grand juries will no longer be used to investigate the deaths of people allegedly killed by police officers.

Although processes differ from state to state, as well as on the federal level, traditionally there are two different ways that suspects can be indicted. In California, either a prosecutor can files charges and then bring the case before a judge in a preliminary hearing, or they can present evidence and seek an indictment from a supposedly unbiased grand jury. The new law, which will go into effect next year, eliminates the latter option.

The reason that California is eliminating the use of grand juries in police-involved deaths comes directly from concerns about transparency that are inherent in the grand jury system. The process usually just involves a group of private citizens receiving evidence from a prosecutor, without a judge or defense attorney present. The prosecutor essentially controls the flow of evidence–yet it’s the grand jury’s decision whether or not to indict. So, if a grand jury fails to do so, the ire falls on them, not the prosecutor. While this is supposed to protect witnesses and keep the presumption of innocence, critics of the process believe it favors the police and allows the prosecutors to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Under the new California law, however, the decision will be made by the prosecutor–and the hope is that they conduct fair and unbiased investigations and file charges if they’re needed. The move is supposed to foster transparency and accountability.

California state Senator Holly J. Mitchell, who wrote the bill, stated:

The use of the criminal grand jury process, and the refusal to indict as occurred in Ferguson and other communities of color, has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system.

However, not everyone is as optimistic that the change will help make sure that officers who do use force inappropriately are held accountable. In fact, another state, New Jersey, has taken literally the opposite approach to ensure that proper oversight is given to police-involved deaths. New Jersey has mandated that civilian grand juries be used in those cases, and created some guidelines and parameters for that use in order to ensure that cases are presented uniformly.

It is very clear that there are certain aspects of our justice system that warrant a re-examination; police-involved killings certainly make the list. While California’s move away from grand juries could end up leading to more transparency, more change may still be needed to make sure that the prosecutors on whom the burden now falls are subject to fair oversight. It’s a step in the right direction, but let’s just hope it’s a big enough step.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Bans Grand Juries in Police-Involved Deaths: Will it Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all! Hope you’re having a great holiday season!

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill in September to remove plastic bags from checkout counters at grocery stores and supermarkets like Wal-Mart and Target starting summer 2015, and 2016 at convenience stores and pharmacies.

Many businesses don’t agree with this ban and have started to collect signatures in order to put a referendum on the ballot in November 2016. American Progressive Bag Alliance, a trade group for plastic bag manufacturing, claims to be turning in about 800,000 signatures. The group really only needs 500,000 valid signatures to qualify for the referendum but it could take several weeks for the counties to determine if all of the signatures are valid.

There are already about 100 counties in California that ban plastic bags, but it is not required for the whole state. It’s no surprise that San Francisco and Los Angeles are two of the cities that already have this ban.

I like the idea of banning plastic bags; it helps the environment. But I don’t like the idea that if you forget to bring your own cloth bags with you then you either have to purchase new ones or you pay ten cents per paper bag. That can start to add up after a while. When I go to the grocery store I go to get things to last me for a week or two, not just a couple of days. I tend to walk out with a ton of bags at once, not just two or three. I don’t imagine everyone shops for just a day or two in advance; grocery shopping takes time out of an already busy day for most.

The majority of Californians support the ban on plastic bags, but why not allow those people who do not support it to still use plastic without a fee? For everyone who likes the ban, continue using your cloth bags and doing what you do!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Californians Fighting Against Plastic Bag Ban appeared first on Law Street.

There’s good news coming out of California right now — the “gay panic” defense is no longer legal justification for murder.

The “gay panic” defense usually has been used for defendants in murder and assault cases. When using it, a defendant explains that he or she was overtaken by temporary insanity that led him or her to kill the victim. Usually the temporary insanity was sparked by an LGBT person supposedly making a pass at the defendant.

The “gay panic” (sometimes “trans panic”) defense usually isn’t used with the hope of getting a not-guilty verdict, but rather to get a manslaughter conviction instead of murder. Many states characterize a killing that occurs in a quarrel or heat of passion as manslaughter rather than murder because of the lack of premeditation. For a long time it was believed that people with repressed homosexual leanings may be susceptible to “gay panic,” so this is essentially a version of the “temporary insanity” defense — a horribly homophobic one with no scientific basis.

This week, California became the first state to actually ban use of the “gay panic” defense in court. Governor Jerry Brown just signed the bill after it passed the state legislature with convincing majorities.

It’s important to note that the “gay panic” defense hasn’t really been that effective in court, at least not in recent attempts. Some famous cases have included the 2002 killing of Matthew Shepard, a college student in Wyoming. Shepard, a gay man, was brutally beaten and killed by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. The defense attorney attempted to use the “gay panic” defense for McKinney, but the judge barred it.

But still, despite the fact that it’s not often used or believed, California did a great thing by outlawing it. The fact that it existed, even at the periphery, is offensive. First of all, there’s been absolutely no scientific basis to show that “gay panic” is an actual possibility. It’s offensive pseudo-science.

The “gay panic” defense also puts some responsibility on the victim. It implies that the victim did something — coming on to his killer — that led to his death. Using it to protect a murderer is really not that different than saying that a woman deserved to get raped because she was wearing a short skirt. It puts responsibility on the victim, when really, all responsibility should be on the killer. Executive Director of the National LGBT Bar Association, D’Arcy Kemnitz, made an equally apt comparison, saying:

Every time a woman walks past a construction site and a bunch of guys make propositions to her, should she be able to respond in an assault in maybe even a murderous fashion?

Another problem with the “gay panic” defense is that it also legitimizes homophobia — it says that being gay or trans in cases of the “trans-panic” defense is so abhorrent that it could throw someone into a state of insanity.

Even though the “gay-panic” defense has been mostly debunked, California should be applauded for formally delegitimizing it. It’s an important statement, and one that other states would do well to follow.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Danny Howard via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California appeared first on Law Street.

In California, an undocumented immigrant who goes to college, law school, and passes the bar now has the ability to be granted a law license.

It’s all because of a young man named Sergio C. Garcia. He was brought to the United States for the first time when he was just over a year old, and spent his childhood going back and forth from California and Mexico. He moved permanently to California at 17. He was brought by his father, who already had a green card. Garcia was approved for a green card himself by state officials, and told that he would receive one when it became available to him.

He then waited for 19 years for that green card. He put that time he waited to good use. He worked his way through college and law school, and then passed the state bar exam. Now 36, he wants to be a lawyer in the country he has called home for almost two decades. Garcia stated, “I am 36 years old. This is the home I know. This is the country I know. And this is the country I want to work for and fight for.”

When Garcia first passed the bar, there were laws in California that allowed anyone to become a lawyer who had some sort of legal standing–including a student visa or a green card. But because Garcia had never actually physically received a green card, the Justice Department claimed he didn’t qualify. And there is federal law that precludes an undocumented immigrant from being admitted to the bar. A former prosecutor with the state bar named Larry DeSha explained the position of those who did not want to admit Garcia, stating,

He can’t say he is going to fulfill his duties as attorney when one of those duties is to uphold all federal laws, when he’s here illegally. And no one can administer the oath to him knowing he’s going to be illegal the minute he puts his hand down. And the other thing is clients can’t pay him money. And any client who finds out that he is illegal has to fire him under federal law.

Garcia’s case eventually made it to the state Supreme Court. It was at that point that Gov. Jerry Brown and the California legislature passed the law allowing Garcia and those like him to receive their law licenses. This new law went into effect officially on January 1, 2014.

Yesterday, the State Supreme Court ruled that under this new law, Garcia is allowed to receive his law license and officially begin to practice law in his home state of California. The decision by the Court was unanimous. As a result of the new California law, the court wrote, “we conclude there is no state law or state public policy that would justify precluding undocumented immigrants, as a class from obtaining a law license in California.”

The decision has been praised by many. A spokesperson for California Attorney General Kamala Harris exclaimed that California’s success, “has hinged on the hard work and self-sufficiency of immigrants like Sergio.”

This California case may set a strong precedent. Similar cases are up for play in Florida and New York. This story out of California is an interesting twist in American immigration rights and law as the federal government remains essentially deadlocked.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ed Uthman via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Welcome California’s Newest Lawyer: Sergio C. Garcia appeared first on Law Street.