By: Gagandeep Singh, CalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Last fall, Harsimran Singh was well on his way to bringing 15,000 fans to Stockton for an international tournament of the ancient Indian sport Kabaddi. 

Then, suddenly,  athletes started dropping out. 

They seemed to manufacture excuses to avoid the sport’s world cup. As president of the American Kabaddi Federation, Singh felt increasingly shaken as the cancellations mounted. He began pressing for answers. 

He learned from athletes, and then from law enforcement officers, that someone was threatening players to shape the outcome of the event. They received phone calls from gangsters, many of them incarcerated in Indian prisons, who directed them not to participate, and warned of consequences if they defied the orders. 

“The players were very afraid; if they got a call, they didn't want to go against gangsters. They were unwilling to play because they didn't want to compromise their own safety and their family's security,” Harsimran Singh said. 

The intimidation of Singh’s tournament was not an isolated incident. It was, as he would come to understand, part of a much larger wave of international threats, extortion and violence targeting Indian and Punjabi Sikhs across California.

The method is straightforward: a gang member calls a victim and demands money. If they refuse, a criminal network threatens or carries out attacks against their relatives, families, or businesses — whether in the United States or back in India. 

Over 250,000 Sikhs live in California, the largest population in the U.S.  Like other members of the diaspora, they retain strong ties to India, with many regularly travelling to visit their families or ancestral homes. 

California law enforcement agencies say the combination of wealth, tight relationships and cross-border movement has made them attractive targets for criminal networks with roots in India’s northern and western states — Punjab, Haryana, New Delhi and Rajasthan.

Police in India told CalMatters that the gangs often target “real estate developers, liquor contractors, transporters, and local businessmen” — people with higher incomes or assets. “One of the primary reasons is the large Indian diaspora in California, which provides a degree of anonymity and social cover,” a spokesperson for an organized crime task force in India’s Haryana state said in a written statement.

The FBI Sacramento field office began sounding alarms in early May 2024, urging members of the Central Valley’s Indian community to report these sorts of shakedowns. 

“In recent extortion attempts, subjects demanded a large sum of money and threatened physical violence or death if the demand was not met,” the FBI said in a statement at the time. 

At least two homicides in California have been connected to the criminal networks targeting people from the Indian diaspora. Two suspected members of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang — described by the FBI as India’s most wanted criminal organization — were killed in Stockton and Fresno, according to local law enforcement agencies. 

San Joaquin County Sheriff Patrick Withrow said that the criminal pattern was unlike a network with purely domestic roots. “Most of them have an international type of link to them, where it stretches back to India because the threats are being made to family members and businesses back there,” he said.

Withrow explained that the initial demands were deliberately calibrated to avoid triggering a police response. “They usually start with amounts between $4,000 and $7,000 — they figure that that's a range that somebody might pay and still not contact the police,” Withrow said. “The victim families sometimes paid, with a calculation that a single payment would protect their family and business in India and the United States as well.”

A County of San Joaquin sign on the top of a building in downtown Stockton on March 26, 2026. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters

It rarely worked out that way. “Most of the time, a few months later, the extortion crew will come back and want more money again,” Withrow said. 

Withrow said his office has been receiving roughly two extortion related cases per month over the past year or two. His office in July arrested eight alleged members of a gang led by Pavittar Preet Singh, who in India faces charges related to firearms violations, assaults and homicides.

India's most wanted

At the center of the criminal operation, the Lawrence Bishnoi gang, commonly known as the Bishnoi gang, has members across India, the United States, and Canada. 

Bishnoi gang leader, Lawrence Bishnoi, is incarcerated in an Indian prison, but federal investigators in recent criminal indictments say he has continued to direct his global network of extortion and target killings by using encrypted messaging applications, cross-border coordination and a cadre of U.S.-based associates to extort victims in both countries.  

Investigators believe Lawrence Bishnoi is able to access to contraband cellphones and oversee the criminal activities of the Bishnoi gang despite Indian authorities placing him in a form of custodial confinement.

In December 2023, Lawrence Bishnoi personally contacted an extortion victim via an audio call, according to the FBI, then turned on his camera to confirm his identity to the victim. The victim captured a screenshot, a rare documentary evidence linking Lawrence Bishnoi directly to an extortion threat. 

The FBI found that U.S.-based Bishnoi gang members and associates routinely used WhatsApp and Signal to relay threats and demands to victims in India. “If the victims do not pay, Bishnoi gang members and associates arrange to have members in India conduct shootings of the victims, their associates, their residences, and their businesses,” the federal agency said in a November indictment against an alleged gang member.

In November 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Anmol Bishnoi — Lawrence Bishnoi’s younger brother — in Nebraska, according to the FBI. 

Indian authorities allege he played a central role in two of India’s most sensational homicides: the killing of globally acclaimed Punjabi rapper Sidhu Moose Wala in May 2022 in Punjab and of Baba Saddique, a prominent politician and former Maharashtra state minister.

Within weeks of Anmol’s arrest, Sunil Yadav, an Indian national and a suspected member of the Bishnoi gang, was killed in Stockton. In Fresno, Banwari Godara — a suspected Bishnoi gang associate — was fatally shot near a truck repair yard on Oct. 18. 

The homicides took a transnational turn in January, when Indian authorities announced the arrest of four suspects allegedly responsible for the two killings. According to Indian investigators, the suspects were members of a gang that is a rival to Bishnoi’s. Investigators believe the suspects fled the U.S. after the killings. Law enforcement agencies in California have not announced arrests or suspects in the homicides.

Police in Sacramento County link the Indian-based gangs to 20 shootings in the past four years, according to Sheriff’s Detective Steve Hernandez.

Enforcement actions continued throughout 2025 with multiple arrests reported by the FBI and the California Highway Patrol. In April 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel trumpeted the arrest by FBI Sacramento of Harpeet Singh, who Patel described as an alleged terrorist responsible for attacks in Punjab, and also linked to two international terrorist groups.

A California-based Sikh businessman told CalMatters he received an extortion demand from a Bishnoi gang member based in the Central Valley. The victim has been receiving calls for the past two and a half months, he said on condition of anonymity because of the threats he faces.

The gangster at one point demanded $1 million, he said.

“It has had a psychological impact on my life; it has restricted me, and I can’t move freely if I have to travel to India,” he said. The man has reported the threats to police in Fresno and to the FBI.

Threats followed victim to Canada

One of the most recent cases involves Jasmeet Singh, an Indian national who was living in the Stockton and Fresno areas when he allegedly made a series of threats to a victim who had relocated to Canada from India, according to a December indictment in federal court. 

The victim retained an Indian phone number after moving to Canada. Months later, Jasmeet Singh obtained that number to unleash a series of threats via phone calls and voice messages, and became furious after learning that the victim had cooperated with Indian law enforcement, the indictment said. 

Jasmeet Singh reportedly identified the victim’s vehicle as a white Range Rover,  showing a surveillance capability that spanned international borders. 

“You’re going to die in Canada. I won’t even leave you capable of going to India,” Jasmeet Singh told the victim, according to the indictment. 

“Go complain to whoever you want to complain to, go complain over there too. We’ll kill you over there, too,” Jasmeet Singh said in a voice message sent that day. 

Although Jasmeet Singh did not directly mention the Lawrence Bishnoi gang’s name during those alleged calls, the FBI concluded that the nature and context of the threats — specifically the references to the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement — indicate Jasmeet Singh’s association with the gang. 

The investigation was triggered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who had initially flagged Jasmeet Singh’s conduct and shared information with their American counterparts, which triggered the FBI’s investigation. 

He was arrested and taken into federal custody in December and is awaiting trial. His next court date is in May. His lawyer has not responded to CalMatters’ requests for comment.

Naindeep Singh, executive director of the Jakara Movement, a prominent Sikh advocacy group based in California, described transnational extortion gangs as being active in the state for some time. 

Many Sikh community members “choose to remain silent because of a fear of reprisal to them, their body, their business, and to their loved ones in the United States or India,” said Naindeep Singh.

The Fresno County Sheriff's Office and the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office acknowledged this under-reporting. “We believe there are more crimes occurring than we have records of,” a Fresno County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson said. 

Naindeep Singh and other community members have approached Fresno police and federal agents to raise the alarm about the extortion attempts.

Security at Kabbadi tournament

Back in Stockton, Harsimran Singh sat in his business office, explaining to a visitor that his world cup event went forward after all.

The  sport, part tag and part wrestling, has been plagued in recent years by a series of murders in India involving players and various organized crime factions, even as  its popularity has mounted in California.

Harsimran Singh believes the Jaggu Bhagwanpuria gang that targeted his tournament. Its leader, Jaggu Bhagwanpura, is in prison in India. 

Harsimran Singh, president of the American Kabaddi Federation, at his office at a trucking yard in Stockton on March 30, 2026. Singh discusses how Indian-origin gangsters and criminal violence influenced their World Cup Kabaddi 2025 event in October. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters

“The law enforcement officials also wanted us to be careful, and we had to hire a lot of security and make sure everything went smoothly,” he said.

Police and FBI agents showed up to supplement the private guards, even though Harsimran Singh never filed a formal complaint with them. 

“We do not want to engage in any of these activities that could harm our property or our lives. We would want to avoid that,” Harsimran Singh said. 

The security held. 

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Sacramento area State Senator and former Sacramento City Councilmember Angelique Ashby introduced a controversial bill last year that would require the creation of a new agency that would force Sacramento County’s local governments to work together on homelessness.

Ashby’s legislation would require all cities in Sacramento County and the county government to enter into a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), a legally binding agreement established for public agencies to work together for a common purpose. 

The bill is scheduled to be heard in the legislature this summer. It’s been the subject of public debate for months. Recently, the county of Sacramento opposed the measure and as of March has called it illegal. 

CapRadio’s Local Government Reporter Riley Palmer spoke with Ashby about her bill and why she thinks it’s necessary.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity

Could you explain what SB802 is, why you wrote it, and the biggest things that it will accomplish?

?SB 802, which has drawn a lot of attention, and I think rightfully so, is about one thing and really one thing only: It is about asking the county and the cities inside of the county of Sacramento to collaborate as they work on housing and homelessness. 

?We received grand jury reports criticizing us and the county, in fact, at one point, calling us saying that we were in an endless loop of failure in Sacramento as it relates to service to the homeless, and really telling us that the pathway forward required greater collaboration and therefore required a joint power authority.

Why do you think a Joint Powers Authority is necessary?

We don't coordinate, and so what happens is entities will say – and I'm using the term entities on purpose because sometimes it's a city, sometimes it's a county, sometimes it's a group of nonprofits – They will say, we'll work together and we'll just have meetings together. Sometimes they do, but there's no consistency to it. There's no oversight to it. There's no legal obligation to continue to do so relative to it. 

?Yes, SB 802 forces the joint powers authority, but I'm probably the fifth or sixth entity to say you must do this. And I think the reason that that conversation keeps repeating and repeating and repeating is because each of the entities involved in this control some components of it. Both financially and from a responsibility standpoint, and there is a concern on each of their parts in collaborating on those issues, but it has to happen because we're not making progress. 

?We've had point in time counts that have made it look like that number has gone up or down, the truth is we've done a lot better at compiling statistics on our own outside of a one night count. Loaves and Fishes and other organizations, including the county's own records for services to people, would indicate that we are still between 9,000 and 10,000 people unhoused.

?I spoke with Sacramento County and they have disputed the claim that there hasn't been much progress in addressing homelessness. They've also said they're against SB 802 and claim that parts of it are illegal. How would you respond to that?

?Everyone that I have spoken with in the legislative council team and as we have progressed have been operating with a level of comfort that we are well within the state's regulatory authority. None of the references that the county has sent me include any kind of legal analysis with case law. They're all just interpretations of code, which basically comes down to varying opinions on policy. 

The county is doing great work and we have good elected officials in the county and of the city and all of the cities in the region. This is not an indictment of any one individual or one agency. It is an indictment of a process that long ago should have been corrected and hasn't been and left to its own devices never will be because many efforts have been made to bring everyone into one room. A joint powers authority would not only force the cities and the counties to work together with these resources, it would give the community a place to go.

?When you as a resident have a concern and you want to share that concern with your elected officials right now, it's very hard to know where to go because there are eight different boards with some level of authority over housing and homelessness with a total of almost 90 board members. That's not tenable.

There's a concern that I've heard from cities and the county of being forced to work together. Can you speak to that concern of forcing agencies to work together? 

?They don't have to listen to me, they could do it themselves, and they've had over 20 years to pull it together, and ‘they’ includes me. I was on the city council for at least 12 of those 20 years.

We weren't able to achieve it even though we voted for it multiple times. It just didn't happen because one entity would tell the other entity no. Just like they do now. 

?Given the 20 year history of dialogue around a need for joint powers authority and the lack of progress on the issue of homelessness, the argument of don't tell us what to do falls short for me. Particularly when you are receiving half a billion dollars worth of funds in less than five years from the state of California to address housing and homelessness collectively.

In terms of your bill, what’s the timeline for SB802 and where is it now?

?I turned it into a two year bill, which basically just gave us a little more time. It already has gone through the Senate and sailed through. It's now on the assembly side of the legislature. I paused it in November to give the region a chance … They said they wanted to have a large meeting of all of the cities and the county, and they did. However, at that meeting, they took no action, including they did not even decide to ever meet again.

The normal course of the legislature is that those bills would be heard in May, June and July then would be back on concurrence likely in August and September, and then that's when they go to the governor and then he has until October, some 30 days past whenever we give him the bills to sign or veto them. ?This two year process will be done in October. 

Read and listen to Sacramento County Supervisor Patrick Kennedy explain why the county opposes SB802 here.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Despite President Donald Trump’s putting his thumb on the scale, California Republicans refused to unite behind a single candidate for governor this weekend. 

The party faithful, many of whom sported ‘Trump 2028’ ball caps and paid more than $1,000 in hotel and flights to gather in sunny San Diego, split their votes relatively evenly between Steve Hilton, a businessman and former Fox News host who received the president’s endorsement, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. 

The final tally was 49% for Bianco and 44% for Hilton, both shy of the necessary 60% threshold to earn the party’s endorsement.

Hilton, a British-American who is leading all candidates in polling, entered the weekend as a relative party outsider. He called blocking Bianco’s endorsement “a major success” and said he remained “very confident” that he would secure one of the top two spots in California’s June 2 primary.

“Chad Bianco came into this convention assuming he’d got the whole thing in the bag,” Hilton said. “I think we made great progress this weekend to make it roughly even.”

The sheriff, who for months courted delegates and party insiders for the endorsement, was adamant that the final tally didn’t accurately reflect how much party support he has.

Hilton, one of the race’s top fundraisers, has raised more than $6.6 million so far, exceeding Bianco’s haul by more than $2 million.

“This changes nothing about our campaign,” Bianco said after the vote Sunday. Despite failing to garner even a majority of the votes, he also insisted, “I have the supermajority of the support from this room, way more than what that total indicated.”

“Endorsements are silly,” he added, before also acknowledging that an endorsement from the party “would have been nice.” 

Amy Reichert, former candidate for the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, films gubernatorial candidate Chad Bianco at the California Republican Party convention in San Diego Resort on April 11, 2026.Adriana Heldiz/CalMatters

Bianco made headlines last month for seizing hundreds of thousands of ballots cast in the special election for Proposition 50, the Democrats’ plan to redraw congressional districts, which voters approved. CalMatters was one of several news organizations that went to court to unseal the warrants that granted his seizure of ballots.

Uncertainty about GOP future

There was no denying that Republicans nationally could face brutal losses in the upcoming midterm elections, although the ocean breeze, harbor views and sunny mid-60s weather might have taken the edge off. Even some of the party’s conservative stalwarts acknowledged the uphill battle.

Speaking on a congressional panel moderated by former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Rep. Darrell Issa acknowledged that Republicans “may not hold the House in the midterms.” 

Issa, who chose to retire rather than seek reelection after Democrats significantly redrew his 48th District as part of their Proposition 50 redistricting plan, agreed Republicans need to focus on local issues — not just national talking points — as a way to combat what he called “Trump derangement syndrome.”

“Is our base fired up?” Spicer asked Rep. Tom McClintock, who also spoke on the panel. 

“I think maybe by summer,” McClintock said, “once we’re past all of the turbulence from Iran.”

Bashing Democrats provided some comedic relief and unity despite the bleak outlook — the president’s party almost always suffers losses in a midterm election. California Republicans reveled in the downfall of Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault and until this weekend was the Democratic frontrunner in the race for governor. His potential toppling added fuel to the Republican argument that Democrats, whose gubernatorial vote is split among eight candidates, are incapable of coherent leadership.

“It’s been a couple of hours, so I think we’re due for another Eric Swalwell ‘intern’-ruption,’” Hilton joked at the start of his remarks during a candidate forum on Saturday. “Good thing the Democrats have a great backup plan.”

Trump ‘should’ve stayed out of it.’

Political strategists theorized that Trump’s endorsement of Hilton would guarantee a Democrat’s victory in November, since it would consolidate the GOP vote and eliminate the possibility that Republicans could lock the Democrats out of the top-two primary in June.

But the party faithful in San Diego remain convinced that both Hilton and Bianco will continue to outperform a dysfunctional field of Democrats. Corrin Rankin, the California GOP chair, pointed to numerous polls that show Hilton and Bianco finishing in the top two. 

“I don’t see why that wouldn’t still be the case,” Rankin told reporters on Friday. “Californians see that these two Republicans are better than any of the candidates the Democrats are offering.”

Rankin also said she was surprised that Trump weighed in on anything California-related. “This is not something that he typically does,” she said.

Bianco said he was unbothered by Trump’s decision to endorse his opponent. Throughout the weekend he received the celebrity treatment, strutting around the resort complex with an entourage of supporters in tow. Fans stopped him for selfies and videos for their social media channels. Many of them waved flags and signs bearing his name and phrases like, “Only the sheriff can save us now!”

“This has never been about an endorsement for me,” Bianco said after Saturday’s forum, where candidates for statewide offices made their final pleas to delegates. “This momentum, that excitement, was amazing. It certainly fires me up. It proves to me that I’m doing the right thing, and we’re gonna save our state.”

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Rep. Eric Swalwell suspended his campaign for California governor Sunday evening, days after two news outlets published explosive allegations of sexual assault and misconduct from four women, including a former staff member. He continued to deny the allegations in an announcement on social media.

Swalwell’s campaign collapsed Friday soon after the first report in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which the unnamed former staff member said Swalwell solicited oral sex from her while she was working for him and twice sexually assaulted her when she was too drunk to consent. The account was corroborated with medical records and by people the woman spoke with after the last incident, which she said took place in New York in 2024.

CNN later Friday published the same woman’s account, as well as those of three other women, one of whom said he kissed and touched her inappropriately and two of whom alleged he sent unsolicited nude photos and other inappropriate messages on Snapchat.

Dozens of supporters and staffers quickly dropped their support for him. Major unions and congressional candidates pulled their endorsements.

In his post, Swalwell apologized to his “family, staff, friends, and supporters,” saying “I am deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past. I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made — but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s.”

Because he is leaving the race after a state deadline to file for or withdraw from a race, his name will still appear on the June 2 primary ballot.

One of the leading Democratic candidates for governor, Swalwell appeared to have dug his heels in Friday night. His attorney, Elias Dabaie, gave an interview on CNN saying he was still in the race. Swalwell himself spoke only in a video he posted to Instagram, calling the allegations “flat false.”

But by then he had already hemorrhaged supporters from across the Democratic establishment. Major labor unions on Friday suspended their support and over the weekend held emergency meetings to withdraw their endorsements. Democratic congressional leaders called for him to drop out, staffers quit or distanced themselves from him and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office announced it would look into the alleged 2024 assault.

He also faces mounting pressure from colleagues to resign from Congress, where he has represented parts of the San Francisco East Bay since 2013.

Reached by phone Sunday morning, campaign manager Yardena Wolf, Swalwell’s former congressional chief of staff, said she and other campaign staff had not spoken with the congressman. She said she was remained on Swalwell’s payroll to sign her subordinates’ paychecks.

Wolf was with Swalwell at a town hall in Sacramento last week where he forcefully denied rumors of inappropriate behavior to reporters and said he had never had any sexual encounters with any staff. 

Swalwell ran primarily on his antagonism toward President Donald Trump, telling voters that fighting Trump is the California governor’s “number one job.”

He was also the center of controversies, including challenges about his California residency and questions about who invests in his AI campaign finance startup, which is used by some of his Democratic colleagues in Congress. 

For much of the past two weeks, he was in a three-way tie for lead Democrat in the race, along with Katie Porter and Tom Steyer, all of whom trailed the two Republican candidates, Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, raising concerns among Democrats that the two Republicans could take the top two spots in the June 2 primary election, advance to November and lock Democrats out of the seat. 

Swalwell’s exit could allow another Democrat to surge into the lead, if most of his supporters flock to the same candidate. 

By Danielle Venton, KQED

Candidates vying for the position of state insurance commissioner in the June primary election met at a forum in downtown San Francisco on Thursday to make the case for why they’re right for the job.

The normally sleepy race is attracting a lot of attention as wildfires and inflation have caused a crisis in the state’s home insurance market — where coverage can be both difficult to obtain and costly.

The state’s insurance commissioner has the primary job of setting the rules insurance companies need to follow in the state. It’s a role currently held by Ricardo Lara, who is termed out in November.

Asked about what would be considered a benchmark for success, state Sen. Ben Allen said with a laugh, “One real benchmark would be that there would be less interest in the insurance commissioners’ position. Because it’s always been kind of under-the-radar. It’s become so high-profile because of all the problems that we have.”

The future commissioner will need to balance requirements for insurance companies with being business-friendly enough that companies still want to sell policies in California.

Steven Bradford (center), a former California state assemblymember and state senator, speaks during a forum for candidates for California insurance commissioner at the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR).Beth LaBerge/KQED

They will also face widespread problems with the FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, and concerns about how to keep a healthy insurance market amid the acceleration of climate-fueled disasters.

“I think everyone wants the insurance Commissioner’s position to go back to just doing work as opposed to this existential crisis that we’re in right now,” Allen said.

Most candidates expressed similar aims, with varying plans for how to achieve them. Ideas ranged from creating a public disaster insurance program to securing more money to help neighborhoods harden homes against fires.

Eight candidates will be on the ballot for the June primary, with the top two advancing to the November general election. Five of those were in attendance at the Thursday forum hosted by SPUR, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association — a nonprofit public policy organization.

Allen represents portions of Los Angeles that were affected by last year’s fires. He spoke of bills he’d authored to improve consumer and environmental protections, including Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond passed in 2024 that provides money for climate resilience, including wildfire prevention.

He spoke of the need to focus on community-wide fire risk reduction and push insurance companies to better support customers.

Steven Bradford, former State Assemblymember and Senator, highlighted the need to give the Department of Insurance more resources and more modern tools. He also spoke of wanting to have the department approve rate adjustments more quickly and for insurance companies to be more transparent in their rate-making.

Merritt Farren, an attorney and tech executive, speaks during a forum for candidates for California insurance commissioner at the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) in San Francisco on April 9, 2026.Beth LaBerge/KQED

Merritt Farren, a media and technology executive, lost his home in LA during the fires and was part of fighting State Farm’s recent rate hikes in court.

He spoke of his experience working for Disney and Amazon, saying these companies could provide inspiration for simplifying the process of regulating and buying insurance and creating new tech jobs.

He also proposed a public reinsurance program, modeled after Florida’s catastrophe fund for hurricanes and the U.K.’s public–private reinsurance program for floods.

Jane Kim, a former San Francisco supervisor, perhaps had the most concrete suggestions for radical change.

She proposed creating a single-payer public disaster insurance program run by the state, which would guarantee coverage and be modeled on programs in France, Spain and New Zealand.

Patrick Wolff, a financial analyst, speaks during a forum for candidates for California insurance commissioner at the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) in San Francisco on April 9, 2026.Beth LaBerge/KQED

Beyond home insurance, she suggested expanding the low-cost nonprofit auto insurance program created by the legislature in 1999 and guaranteeing healthcare for every child in California. “I think California can do it,” she said.

Patrick Wolff, a financial analyst, worked in the 2000s building an insurance brokerage for a bank, which, he said, gave him insights into how the industry operates.

He suggested the FAIR Plan should have broader coverage and said the state was starting to make progress in allowing companies “to operate more economically and effectively, but there’s a lot more that needs to be done.”

By: Ryan Sabalow, Cayla Mihalovich and Wendy Fry, CalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s investigators had no insider tipsters, no witnesses and no independent analyses from forensic experts when they approached a local judge and asked to take the unprecedented step of seizing hundreds of thousands of ballots.

Instead, the evidence they showed Judge Jay Kiel were claims from a group that one independent elections expert described as the equivalent of “flat earthers” alleging possible voter fraud. The county’s top elections official says their claims of miscounted ballots are based on flawed and incomplete data.

Kiel, whom Bianco endorsed when he was running for the bench, signed the search warrants anyway, allowing the sheriff to take the highly unusual step of seizing 650,000 ballots from California’s 2025 election amid his own campaign for governor.

Until this week, the warrants were secret with Bianco, a Republican, contending they reflected “normal law enforcement” and Kiel keeping them under seal.

That changed Wednesday when a different Riverside County judge and the California Supreme Court ordered them opened after CalMatters and other news organizations petitioned for their disclosure.  

After reviewing the documents, experts had mixed opinions on whether Bianco’s investigators  had enough evidence of probable cause to justify the raid. Some said the lack of evidence in the investigators’ affidavits raises troubling questions about how easy it was for Bianco to seize the ballots with the appearance of judicial oversight.

Bianco said he didn’t care what independent experts had to say about his investigators’ warrants, and he blamed the media and California Attorney General Rob Bonta for trying to politicize the sheriff’s investigation.

“We took the information to a judge, and the judge agreed; it's really as simple as that,” he said. “Why not just get to the bottom of it and see what the difference in the numbers were?”

Cristine Soto DeBerry, a former prosecutor who heads the nonprofit Prosecutors Alliance Action, said she was troubled by how much the sheriff relied on an activist group’s claims without trying to first verify them before obtaining the warrants.

“This entire course of conduct concerns me,” said Soto DeBerry, whose group advocates for criminal justice reform. “Elections are a sacred institution in this country. We have not seen sheriffs seizing ballots in this country until 2026 and it is being done in a very casual, procedural manner instead of with the kind of care that I’d expect we would use around something so important. And I think that applies to everybody who was involved here.”

Carl Luna, director of the Institute for Civil Civic Engagement at the University of San Diego, criticized the citizens’ group that deputies cited in the warrants and questioned Bianco’s integrity. 

“They are the political equivalent of flat earthers who refuse to look at any facts that do not support their unsupportable views,” said Luna in an email to CalMatters. “The fact that Sheriff Bianco, an elected representative of the people of Riverside County, is using this group’s baseless allegations of fraud as what amounts to a campaign stunt is … evidence to question his fitness to lead the state.”

But Paul Pfingst, a former San Diego County district attorney and the former president of the California District Attorneys Association, said he thought the information presented in the affidavits was enough to meet probable cause. 

“I think it exceeds it by a lot,” he said, pointing to the court paperwork, which says the county registrar of voters had not answered questions from an activist.  

“In the absence of an explanation by the registrar of voters,” said Pfingst, “and unless someone can explain how … such a large discrepancy could occur, it is reasonable for law enforcement to determine whether the discrepancy is the result of electoral fraud or ballot fraud.”

Pfingst said it wasn't necessary for investigators from the sheriff’s department to get an explanation from county election officials before seeking the warrants.  

Art Tinoco, the county’s registrar of voters, publicly rejected the activist group’s claims. He told county supervisors on Feb. 10 – before Kiel signed the last two of the warrants – that the activist group making the allegations didn’t understand the data they were looking through.

“Did the Nov. 4, 2025, statewide special election have a 45,896-ballot discrepancy between ballots cast and ballots counted?” Tinoco told the supervisors, according to the Riverside Press Enterprise. “The answer to that is no.”

CalMatters requested an interview with Tinoco on Thursday. County Chief Executive Officer Jeff Van Wagenen responded with a statement saying that no county officials would comment due to the pending litigation.

A spokesperson for Riverside County Superior Court said Kiel couldn’t comment due to rules prohibiting judges from discussing pending cases.

Court halted Bianco's investigation

The search warrants were unsealed on Wednesday, the same day that the California Supreme Court halted Bianco’s ballot investigation, which he previously characterized as a “fact-finding mission” intended “just as much to prove the election is accurate as it is to show otherwise.” 

That ruling was in response to legal challenges from Bonta and UCLA Voting Rights Project contesting the seizure and recount. 

In lawsuits, Bonta argued that Bianco failed to show that probable cause or evidence of a crime existed — a step that’s required to obtain a search warrant. He called it an attempt to undermine public confidence in elections.

Bonta’s office responded to an interview request Thursday with an emailed statement saying the office is working to “prevent the misuse of criminal investigative tools for partisan fishing expeditions.”

“Our focus is on the sheriff’s responsibilities under the law — to provide sufficient evidence of probable cause in obtaining criminal search warrants, to allow (the) Riverside (registrar of voters) to retain physical custody of the ballots as required by the elections code, and to follow the Attorney General’s lawful directives, all of which he failed to do,” the email read.

Claims from outside group

The newly released records show that the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department was in contact with a citizens’ group that believed they found possible voter fraud after surfacing a roughly 46,000-vote discrepancy between the number of ballots cast versus the number ballots certified, according to Riverside County Sheriff Department investigator Robert Castellanos in a sworn affidavit.

The last of the three warrants Kiel signed was filed on March 19, roughly three weeks after the state Justice Department ordered the Riverside County Sheriff Department to pause its work and share any information that could substantiate its concerns. By that point, the sheriff’s department had already recounted 12,561 ballots, according to Castellanos’s affidavit.

Castellanos’s affidavits do not have a signature from a prosecutor at the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, suggesting prosecutors may not have reviewed the sheriff’s office warrant requests. It’s a common practice in California for a deputy district attorney to review local law enforcement search warrants to ensure investigators are on sound legal footing before presenting their evidence to a judge. The DA’s office didn’t return a message from CalMatters Thursday. 

In an interview, Greg Langworthy said he wasn’t a conspiracy theorist and insisted his group, which calls itself the Riverside County Election Integrity Team, found enough evidence of vote-count discrepancies to warrant further investigation based on the registrar of voters’ own records.

“There’s no doubt that there is a discrepancy, and that's supported by his own records,” he said. “That’s why we say the sheriff is duty bound to investigate. I think all of them are duty bound to investigate.”

Allegations of voter fraud in Trump era

Groups like Langworthy’s are increasingly common, as President Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again movement spread unfounded allegations of rampant voter fraud.

Across the country, there’s been “an increasing appetite for seizing materials for the sake of simply seizing materials,” said Stephen Richer, the Republican former elected recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona. Richer was running his county’s elections office in 2020, when Trump falsely accused him of overseeing a “rigged election,” leading to death threats. 

“I have a lot of experience with independent election fraud hunters and they almost universally have no experience in election administration,” he said. “I think it’s also important when ethically and responsibly submitting an affidavit for probable cause that you assess the credibility of the witnesses.” 

Leonard Moty, a former Redding police chief and Republican supervisor in Shasta County where similar allegations of election impropriety have become common, described the warrants as “pretty light” after reviewing them at CalMatters’ request. 

He said he would have liked to have seen a more specific allegation with supporting evidence in the warrant before taking the matter to a judge.

Instead, the warrants focused on allegations from activists.

“Statements don’t really mean much, particularly with this issue where on both sides people are saying what they want to say,” Moty said. “I would have wanted to see some actual evidence of votes not being counted.”

State Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat from Santa Ana who used to be a federal prosecutor, also reviewed the warrants at CalMatters request. 

He said he’d never seen warrants before that didn’t identify a specific law investigators suspected may have been broken, nor did they present evidence that investigators had verified the reliability of the group making the allegations.

After reading the warrants, Umberg said he was considering writing legislation “to make sure that elections are not interfered with, that ballots are not seized based on some conspiracy theory.”

“This election is going to be a test of our democracy,” Umberg said. “And if it doesn't go the way the president thinks it should go, I am gravely concerned that he will use whatever levers of power he has, federally as well as locally, to undermine that election.”

Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.

CalMatters Deputy Editor Adam Ashton contributed to this story.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

A union-backed proposal to tax California’s billionaires to fund health care has put some progressive lawmakers — and their labor allies — in a quandary.

Taxing the rich to backfill Trump-induced federal funding cuts might sound like a no-brainer policy for the party’s left flank, which counts wealth inequality among its top issues. 

But despite a strong show of support from prominent national figures, including Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and liberal economist Robert Reich, the “2026 California Billionaire Tax Act” has become a hot potato for labor leaders.

The proposed initiative would levy a one-time tax of 5% on any resident of California whose net worth exceeds $1 billion, which applies to around 200 people, according to Forbes. That money would plug an estimated $100 billion hole left by federal cuts to Medi-Cal and other social service programs.

Publicly, prominent labor and progressive players have largely kept quiet, unlike Gov. Gavin Newsom who has aired his disdain loud and clear. Yet in private, some union leaders and their allies in the Legislature rail against the measure. Of the critics who spoke with CalMatters for this story — three union leaders and five members of the Legislative Progressive Caucus — only one lawmaker would criticize the measure openly. 

Critics question its feasibility and whether the state even knows how to accurately appraise a billionaire’s total wealth, a crucial step to evaluating how much tax they would owe. They fear long-term revenue loss by driving wealthy people out of California. And some resent that the union sponsoring the initiative, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, designed the measure to predominantly benefit its members rather than boost the state’s general fund, where it could go to all budget needs. 

“It’s not that taxing billionaires in itself is wrong,” said Keely Martin Bosler, formerly the top state budget officer to Newsom and former Gov. Jerry Brown. She is now a Democratic consultant who has advised several of California’s most powerful labor groups, including the Service Employees International Union of California, the parent union of SEIU-UHW. “The way in which this tax specifically is constructed is problematic.”

Many progressive state lawmakers and Capitol heavyweights, such as Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and the powerful California Labor Federation, have sidestepped the question of whether they’d support it, declining for now to take a position on an initiative that has yet to officially qualify for the ballot. 

“The Labor Federation won’t take it up for an endorsement until July,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the organization’s president, in a text message.

Yet if the tax lands on the November ballot, as it appears on track to do, progressive critics will be saddled with the tricky optics of opposing — or at least not supporting — a measure that embodies one of their base’s core tenets: taxing the rich.

Even the mere threat the measure could qualify for the ballot has already spurred a torrent of opposition spending — more than $50 million in total so far — from billionaires such as Google co-founder Sergey Brin and cryptocurrency mogul Chris Larsen. Brin’s group, known as “Building a Better California,” has also spawned three new competing ballot measures designed to undermine the billionaires’ tax. 

Critics fear that if billionaires like Brin become even bigger perennial spenders in California politics, they could neuter the progressive agenda by bankrolling more business-friendly candidates and ousting left-leaning, labor-aligned legislators. 

But the measure’s proponents say they are undeterred by the secretive detractors and challenge their critics to put their names behind their words.

Dave Regan speaks to the SEIU-UHW Leadership Assembly in 2013.Photo by Steve Yeater courtesy of SEIU-UHW

“What we have is a group of so-called leaders who are not reflecting the attitudes of their own constituents,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW and the de facto leader of the billionaire tax measure. “That’s why they want to be anonymous.”

Regan said he’s confident the initiative will amass enough signatures to qualify for the ballot before the end of April. Then, he said, “We believe a lot of those people are going to come around and change because this makes sense, because the public is supportive, because their own members are supportive.”

The case for, and against, the billionaires’ tax

So far, polling has shown the billionaire tax is relatively popular with voters. Recent surveys show just over half of Californians surveyed said they’re inclined to vote for it. 

Critics point out that California’s existing state tax structure is entirely based on income, rather than net worth. The state would have to appraise each person’s assets, including real estate, art, automobiles and private and public businesses. The billionaires could pay in installments, handing over 1% of their wealth annually for five years.

Bosler said that with income tax filings, the Franchise Tax Board can use data from federal tax returns to verify its own analysis. Since there’s no federal wealth tax, California would be forging uncharted territory with no tax compliance support from any other source or agency — a risky move that could invite legal challenges. 

“The state is not a miracle worker, like, they’re not going to suddenly be able to do all of this like perfectly,” said Bosler. “I mean they will do their best, but I just think this is expertise that they have built up over 50-plus years. Like, none of this is in their wheelhouse at this point.”

But champions of the tax argue it is the only real solution on the table so far to save hospitals, health care jobs and, ultimately, patient lives they say are at risk due to federal funding cuts to Medi-Cal and food assistance programs. 

Supporters note that the tax is not intended to solve California’s structural budget problems. 

“It’s one-time funding to fill what we hope is a one-time hole,” said Brian Galle, a tax law professor at UC Berkeley who helped craft the measure. Galle said only around 200 people would be subjected to the tax, so the extra burden on the Franchise Tax Board wouldn’t be too great. 

“It’s not like FTB is going to get a blizzard of tens of thousands of new returns that they’re going to have to figure out a whole new data system for cracking,” said Galle.

Why some progressives aren’t on board

Those who have qualms with the initiative have largely kept their criticisms private. 

One liberal state legislator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the infighting among the unions puts progressive lawmakers in a difficult position. While he empathizes with the urgency that health care workers feel, he and other Democrats are not convinced the policy could withstand legal challenges and worry about the wealthy employing savvy accounting maneuvers to skirt the tax altogether.

Some organizations that are synonymous with progressive politics in California, such as the Working Families Party, also haven’t taken a position, even as other unions such as the Teamsters and AFSCME California support it. 

Even the powerhouse labor union SEIU California is choosing not to take a position on the measure, which is spearheaded by one of its local affiliates, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. 

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas during a floor session at the Capitol in Sacramento on Jan. 22, 2024.Fred Greaves for CalMatters

Assemblymember Chris Ward, a member of the progressive caucus, called the measure a “well-meaning effort by UHW,” but criticized the proposal for being just a one-time tax primarily benefiting the health care sector rather than boosting the state’s overall revenues. Regan said SEIU-UHW made the tax one-time to nullify the argument that it would push billionaires out of the state.

Ward noted that he and his colleagues are considering “superior” bills, such as one that would close a corporate tax loop to generate $3 billion per year, and another that would create a new tax on corporations that pay workers so little that they qualify for Medi-Cal and nutrition assistance.

Regan argued these measures would only make California more unaffordable, since businesses would pass their increased costs along to consumers. 

Ward, the sole state lawmaker who would candidly share his concerns about the initiative with CalMatters, said he and his colleagues have heard pushback from “a number of other labor organizations that don’t support that initiative,” primarily because its members would not directly benefit from any of the revenue. Uniting labor, he said, is the key to any successful revenue solution.

“There’s a need to look at a wealth tax for a more broad range, including health care workers but other purposes that are state priorities,” Ward said, “and that will be left off of the table if this is the only question we’re seeing.”

For the record: An earlier version of this story misstated Dave Regan’s leadership role with SEIU-UHW. He is president, an elected position, not executive director.

CalMatters‘ Nadia Lathan contributed to this story.

California joined a growing legal fight against a Trump administration immigration policy requiring many detained undocumented immigrants to remain in custody without the opportunity to request a bond hearing. The hearings are used to determine whether a defendant can be released from jail before a trial and under what conditions. 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Wednesday he is co-leading a multistate coalition filing amicus briefs in several federal cases challenging the policy. Bonta argued the policy violates due process and goes against the intent of Congress regarding immigration law. 

The federal government’s interpretation of immigration law now bars many noncitizens who entered the country without inspection from asking a judge for release while their cases are pending regardless of their lack of criminal history. 

The administration has defended its nationwide policy arguing that immigration law mandates detention of any “applicant for admission” who does not have proof that they are allowed to be in the country. This is also part of a broader push to expand on Trump’s campaign promise for stricter immigration policies. 

Bonta said in a statement that the policy is already leading to record detention levels and worsening conditions inside facilities. 

“The Trump administration’s policy isn’t making America greater or safer, it is creating harms that are rippling far beyond detention centers,” he stated. “Children are losing parents, families are losing income stability and communities are losing vital members.” 

Advocates on the ground are already seeing those effects. 

Giselle Garcia, program director with NorCal Resist, said many of those detained in Sacramento are primary earners for their families. 

“They are emotionally suffering, financially suffering since most of the folks who are being picked up are the financial breadwinners of the home,” Garcia said. “Families are also struggling to be able to put money on commissary because … the family has to put money on their loved one’s books to be able to have a phone call.” 

Garcia also said eliminating bond hearings means people are detained for longer in often harsh conditions. 

“Unfortunately, conditions inside of these immigration detention centers are prison-like conditions and sometimes even worse,” she stressed. 

The American Civil Liberties Union has documented  inhumane conditions at several immigrant detention facilities in California, New York, Kansas and Florida, among others. 

The policy marks a stark shift from longstanding immigration practice, according to Dana Leigh Marks. The retired judge who served in San Francisco for 35 years sees the change as politically motivated rather than based on sound legal precedent. 

“If someone is not a flight risk and not a risk to the security of the United States, the vast majority of individuals are then entitled to be released from immigration detention by posting a bond or bail,” she said. 

Both Marks and Garcia argue the policy is also reinforcing the role of private detention facilities in the immigration system. 

“This is simply a way to continue to monetize the benefits of the private prison industry by making it impossible for these people to be released from custody,” Marks emphasized, adding that “huge amounts of profit” are flowing through those companies. 

Garcia has worked with many incarcerated detainees who have described inhumane conditions inside facilities, including black mold in cells, a lack of adequate medical care and being served expired food. 

Data from Detention Watch Network, an advocacy group that tracks immigration detention, shows that over 90 percent of detainees are being held in privately-operated facilities.

“These companies, they get paid based on how full these facilities are,” Garcia said. “So the incentive to incarcerate immigrants is high for the corporation and the profit margins are higher if conditions at these facilities are abysmal.” 

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, AP Political Writer

LOS ANGELES — Democrats have run California for years, but in a nationally critical election the party is being confronted by the limits of its own power: the race for governor is out of control.

Barely a month before the start of mail-in voting, Democratic leaders are openly dreading the possible loss of a statewide election for the first time in two decades. As candidates jockey in a crowded field, the contest has degenerated into finger-pointing over debate eligibility, identity politics and 2025 ballot counting, issues distant from voters struggling with the soaring cost of gas and groceries.

“Squabbles about debates or other inside baseball politics are likely under the radar for most voters and seem almost absurd, given what’s facing us,” Kim Nalder, director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at California State University, Sacramento, said in an email.

Candidates agree that a large number of voters remain undecided on the question of who should take charge of the nation’s most populous state that, by itself, represents the world’s fourth-largest economy. There are more than 50 candidates on the ballot — including eight established Democrats and two leading Republicans.

Dominant Democrats contend with uncertainty

For the first time in a generation the governor’s contest is being defined by uncertainty, not inevitability — former Gov. Jerry Brown and outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom coasted through their elections. How do Democrats reassert their political clout and regain control of the race in a state where the party holds every statewide office, dominates the legislature and outnumbers registered Republicans by nearly 2-to-1?

“I have no idea and anybody who tells you they do, they don’t know either,” said veteran Democratic consultant Dan Newman, who is not involved in the race.

For Democrats, the party’s dicey chances in the June 2 primary stem from the state’s unpredictable “top two” primary system that puts all candidates on one ballot, with only the top two vote-getters advancing to November, regardless of party. The fear is the party’s 24 listed candidates will undercut each other and divide the Democratic vote into small fractions, clearing the way for the two leading Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, both supporters of President Donald Trump — to advance.

While affordability is a top issue around the country, the race for governor has detoured into messy personal attacks and squabbles that have given the campaign a chaotic aura. A major televised debate was canceled after an uproar over the selection criteria that resulted in six white candidates qualifying for the stage while Black, Latino and Asian candidates were snubbed.

The University of Southern California, where the debate was to be held, said the dispute “created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters.” The school’s decision to cancel the event followed accusations of discrimination by candidates of color who were not invited.

The scratched debate came shortly after state Democratic Chair Rusty Hicks pleaded with lagging candidates to drop out of the race. Meanwhile, Rep. Eric Swalwell, one of the leading Democrats, accused Trump of trying to influence the contest after reporting that administration officials ordered FBI agents to gather documents about a decade-old investigation into the congressman’s ties to a suspected Chinese spy. The probe did not result in criminal charges.

Earlier this week, Bianco, after seizing more than half a million 2025 election ballots, said he paused a probe into election fraud allegations, citing mounting legal challenges from the state and a voting rights group.

A ripple effect down the ticket?

Elsewhere in the country, Democrats have been heartened by victories in a string of races — even on Trump's home turf — that they see as promising signs ahead of this year's midterm elections, when control of Congress will be in play. Democratic officials in California fear a vacancy at the top of the ticket in November could depress turnout in critical U.S. House races.

Such a scenario could “imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House,” Hicks, the state Democratic chair, has warned.

The contest to succeed Newsom is playing out with Trump the ubiquitous foil for Democratic candidates — California is regarded as the home of the so-called Trump resistance. Simultaneously the state is beset with a long-running homeless crisis, commonplace seven-figure home prices and projected future budget shortfalls, while residents contend with some of the nation’s highest gas prices, taxes and utility bills.

Polling in early February by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found the field had broken into two distinct groups, with Bianco, Hilton and three Democrats — Swalwell, former Rep. Katie Porter and billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer — in close competition, with other candidates trailing.

The volatile race has recalled the surprise outcome in 1998 — the last wide-open race for governor — when underdog Democrat Gray Davis surged past two leading Democrats in the primary who relentlessly attacked each other, with Davis going on to win in November.

The rules have changed in the attention economy, where candidates must compete with digital platforms and content creators to connect with distracted voters.

“Normally people would be paying attention,” Newman said. “The whole campaign has been in slow motion.”

For the record: This story has been updated to reflect that Maxwell-Jolly’s study replicated the methodology of an earlier one by the Department of Health Care Services, but did not republish department findings.

By: Kristen Hwang, Cal Matters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

When Kekoa Gittens was 3, his preschool teacher told his mother he was a problem. He couldn’t sit still. He didn’t participate. When other kids learned the alphabet, he didn’t pay attention. 

The next year, Kekoa’s classroom problems worsened. His mother, Sonia Gittens, took him to his pediatrician, who referred the boy to an eye doctor. 

That doctor looked at the back of Kekoa’s eyes and diagnosed him with myopic degeneration, a dramatic form of nearsightedness. 

“They are too little. They don’t know how to express themselves and say ‘I cannot see it, teacher,’” said Sonia Gittens, who lives in the Marin County town of Corte Madera. 

Today, Kekoa is a successful high schooler, but too many kids don’t get their eyes checked until they’re far behind in school. 

Vision problems, particularly nearsightedness, have grown more common among American children. Roughly one in four school-age kids, or 25%, wear glasses or contacts, a proportion that increases as kids get older, according to 2019 federal survey data. 

In California too few children on Medi-Cal like Kekoa are getting their eyes checked, and the problem is growing worse. Just 16% of school-age kids on Medi-Cal saw an eye doctor between 2022 and 2024 for first-time eye exams, continuing vision check ups or glasses, according to a report commissioned by the California Optometric Association. That’s down from 19% eight years earlier. The report, based on two years of Medi-Cal data, suggests that the state is moving in the wrong direction even as eye problems become more prevalent among kids. 

Medi-Cal provides insurance for low-income Californians and those with disabilities.

“Every day when I see these children it is always a surprise to me that the kids are not getting the care they need,” said Ida Chung, a pediatric optometrist and an associate dean at Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona.

The trend indicated in the report is alarming, Chung said. In her clinic, where about half of children are on Medi-Cal, it’s common for kids with congenital vision problems to visit for the first time when they’re in first grade or later. That indicates to Chung that many kids don’t have enough access to eye care.

Though kids might be getting basic vision screenings at school or from a pediatrician, some eye problems are still overlooked. “It’s something the child had before they were born,” Chung said.

Eye exams decrease statewide

Colusa County, a rural farming region north of Sacramento, saw the sharpest drop in kids’ eye doctor appointments in the state from 20% between 2015-16 to just under 2% between 2022-24. 

Nearly all counties — 47 out of 58 — performed worse on vision care than they did in the past, the report shows, with some, like Colusa, declining significantly.

Most of the severe declines happened in rural areas, although urban counties like San Francisco and Los Angeles also saw decreases. Only seven counties improved the rate of children receiving eye exams or glasses. Four counties were excluded for comparison in the report because the numbers were too small.

“The decline in performance here is so widespread that something really needs to happen,” said David Maxwell-Jolly, a health care consultant who authored the report and the former director of the Department of Health Care Services, which oversees Medi-Cal. “These numbers are way lower than what you would expect to be seeing if we’re doing a good job of detecting kids with treatable conditions.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Health Care Services said in an email the state could not confirm the accuracy of an external report, noting that vision services can be difficult to track because “not all encounters are captured in a single, comprehensive dataset.”

For example, many initial vision screenings take place in the pediatrician’s office during well-child visits, which include eye and hearing screenings as well as immunizations and developmental checks. State data shows about half of kids with Medi-Cal receive well-child visits.

Still, experts say the low numbers tell a real story: if  children were reliably getting follow-up care from initial screenings, the share who get comprehensive eye exams and glasses would be closer to 25-30% — in line with the known prevalence of vision problems among kids — rather than the 16% found in the optometric association’s report.

Maxwell-Jolly said the analysis he conducted replicated an internal, unpublished department report tracking vision services between 2015 and 2016. His analysis, based on data obtained through a public records act request, updated the results for more recent years.

The state’s most recent Preventive Services Report, which measures how well Medi-Cal delivers preventive care to children, shows the rate of comprehensive eye exams for children and young adults ages 6-21 is similar to the optometric association’s analysis at 17%.

Contra Costa County experienced the third largest decline in children’s eye care in the state. A spokesperson for Contra Costa Health Plan said Medi-Cal health plans are not required by the state to track vision benefits  and that it would take time to understand the data. The state, however, does track vision services internally, according to the health care services department.

A bill sponsored by the optometric association and authored by Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, a Democrat from Cupertino, aims to require the state to establish vision benefit quality measures and report performance data publicly. The goal of the legislation is to track where kids do not have enough access to vision services and to ensure that Medi-Cal providers are improving services.

Rural challenges

Amy Turnipseed, chief strategy and government affairs officer for Partnership HealthPlan of California, said rural parts of the state struggle to find enough providers. The nonprofit health insurer provides Medi-Cal for 24 northern counties, including Colusa and Modoc.

In Modoc County, which borders Oregon and Nevada, one optometrist serves a 90-mile radius. Partnership has worked closely with that optometrist to ensure they continue accepting Medi-Cal patients, Turnipseed said.

“In rural counties with lower populations, losing even one provider can exponentially impact the access to services to families,” Turnipseed said. “In the past few years we’ve seen vision providers reduce or limit their Medi-Cal, which makes it harder for families to see providers.”

An assortment of glasses at Vision to Learn mobile optometry clinic at Esther Lindstrom Elementary School in Lakewood on March 20, 2026. Photo by Ariana Drehsler for CalMatters

Modoc is one of just seven counties where more children have received vision care in recent years, according to the report.

Providers frequently cite low reimbursement rates from the state as a reason for not accepting Medi-Cal patients. The California Optometric Association estimates only about 10% of its members accept Medi-Cal. The reimbursement rate for a comprehensive eye exam is about $47, said Kristine Shultz, association executive director.

“Our reimbursement rates haven’t increased in 25 years. Imagine getting paid what you were paid 25 years ago,” Shultz said.

Schools check kids’ vision, but follow-up is spotty

State law requires schools to periodically check kids’ vision starting in kindergarten. Those screenings are a good bellwether for if a child is struggling to see in class, said Chung with Western University. The problem is getting the kids who fail the screening to an eye doctor.

Chung runs an academic optometry clinic that works with local schools in Pomona.  Each year up to 35% of students fail the screening, meaning they likely have a vision problem. But based on conversations with school nurses, Chung said only about 7% of those children then go to an eye doctor and come back to school with glasses.

Chung, who chairs the children’s vision committee for the California Optometric Association, said colleagues who work with school districts around the state report similar experiences.

“If a high number of those children are not getting the follow up care, we may just be fooling ourselves and checking a box,” Chung said. “We’re in compliance with the law in California but are we really helping the children?”

For some families, the answer is no. That’s what happened to Kekoa when he was 3. The school checked his eyes and said he might have vision problems, but his mother, Gittens, waited. Her son was still learning his numbers and letters. How would he be able to read an eye chart, she reasoned. It wasn’t until his problems got worse that Gittens took Kekoa to an eye doctor.

Now, at 15, Kekoa wears contacts and likes athletics. He needs to see to compete in capoeira martial arts competitions and surf on the weekends, his mother said.

First: Dr. Kiyana Kavoussi shows letters on a monitor during Noah Mattison’s, 11, visual acuity test. Last: Optician Maya Ortega looks at Italia Martin’s, 6, eyes before she chooses new glasses inside the Vision to Learn mobile optometry clinic at Esther Lindstrom Elementary School in Lakewood on March 20, 2026. Photos by Ariana Drehsler for CalMatters

Many parents lack the resources to take their kids to the doctor, or simply wait. Notes from school nurses flagging that a child failed a vision screening may also get lost in a backpack on the way home, educators say. The California Department of Education does not track the results of school vision screenings.

Vision To Learn, a nonprofit, created a mobile eye clinic to help bridge the gap between kids failing school vision screenings and getting glasses. The group brings an optometrist to campus, meaning kids that need an eye exam can get one the same day and go home having gotten a prescription and ordered glasses.

Damian Carroll, chief of staff and national director, said Vision to Learn’s numbers tell a similar story to Chung’s. About one-third of students screened are unable to read the eye chart, but very few of those kids have adequate glasses.

In the California schools where the program operates, around 70% of kids who have been prescribed glasses did not own a pair. Another 20% had glasses with outdated prescriptions, according to internal data, Carroll said.

And that gap can drastically affect learning outcomes or behavior in school.

“First and second graders who try on glasses the first time are blown away because they just thought that’s how the world looked,” Carroll said. “They can see the leaves on the trees and the math on the board, and it’s shocking to them.”

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

By DEE-ANN DURBIN and MATT SEDENSKY, Associated Press

Leslie Sherman-Shafer, an Uber driver in the San Francisco Bay Area, likes to start each shift with a full tank of gas.

It used to cost her around $25 to fill up her Toyota Corolla. She's spent closer to $40 since the Iran war began and pushed up the average U.S. price for a gallon of regular gasoline by $1. Sherman-Shafer, a retired dental office assistant who picks up Uber passengers five days a week, said she’s putting in extra hours to cover the difference.

“We don’t get reimbursed for gas. We rely on the generosity of the tip,” Sherman-Shafer said. Some passengers have tipped more to compensate for higher gas prices, but most don't tip at all, she said.

Driving a car, van or truck is a big part of many Americans’ workdays. Nearly 27% of civilian workers cited driving as a physical demand of their jobs last year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Millions of drivers use personal vehicles for their work, from delivery and ride-share providers like Sherman-Shafer to self-employed electricians, nannies, home health care aides and real estate agents.

As the war enters a fifth week and continues to disrupt global oil supplies. many of those workers are now scrambling to make ends meet. The national average price for gas reached $3.99 per gallon on Monday, up 34% from a month earlier, according to AAA.

“With everything going up, it’s impossible to save a dime,” Sherman-Shafer said.

Some companies compensate employees for using their own vehicles, including the cost of gas. In the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service sets a standard mileage rate every year that businesses and private contractors can use to calculate tax deductions. Alpine Maids, a housekeeping company based in Denver, pays cleaners the 2026 federal reimbursement rate of 72.5 cents per mile for the distance they drive to clients’ homes.

But with gas prices spiking, that money is not going as far, said Chris Willatt, a former geologist who now runs Alpine Maids.

“Our maids drive their own cars, so it’s kind of like their paycheck got smaller,” Willatt said. “They’re all upset.”

Willatt said he reduced how often maids must report to the office, from daily to once a week, and rejiggered cleaning assignments so employees aren’t driving as far between clients. If gas prices climb further, he said he might increase what he charges customers so he can pay workers more.

Molly Kenefick, the owner of Doggy Lama Pet Care Inc. in Oakland, California, said she recently raised her gas reimbursement rate to 80 cents per mile for 15 employees who use their own vehicles to pick up dogs and take them for hikes around the Bay Area. The rate increase will stay in place until gas prices in their area drop below $5 for at least a month, she said.

Kenefick said she planned to raise prices for the company's services in May. But she doesn't want to increase them too much because she's worried she'll lose clients. So Kenefick is also dipping into her savings to pay for gas.

“The economy is hard for people. Everybody’s under strain,” she said. “I can take some of the load and the company can take some of the load, provided this doesn't go on too long.”

Ride-hailing and food delivery platforms that rely on gig workers don't reimburse drivers for gas, but some are offering temporary incentives in response to rising gas prices. DoorDash, Uber, Lyft and Instacart are providing more than the usual cash back on gas purchases for drivers who use company-branded debit cards. DoorDash and Instacart are giving a weekly fuel payment to drivers who travel 125 miles or more making deliveries.

Sarah Noell, who spends about 20 hours a week making deliveries for DoorDash in Lynchburg, Virginia, said the measures help somewhat. But she said she's noticed more customers declining to add tips to their orders as gas prices have increased.

Noell has started refusing any order that won't average out to $1 per mile, including the $2.50 per order she gets from DoorDash. That cancels out many users who aren’t tipping or give only small tips.

“It takes nearly double the cost to fill my tank,” Noell said. “Ten dollars used to get me a decent amount. Now it only gets me 3 gallons.”

Owners of diesel-powered vehicles have seen even steeper fuel price increases since the war started on Feb. 28, affecting drivers around the world.

Drivers of diesel-powered “jeepneys” in the Philippines, went on strike for two days last week to protest their higher costs. In France, dozens of buses and trucks drove slowly on the Paris ring road Monday to demonstrate their concerns about rising diesel prices. Drivers and businesses want the French government to provide aid to mitigate the impact.

“The major difficulty right now is finding our balance on our business since we sold services with the vehicles at a certain price for diesel that was much cheaper. And we’re not going to ask customers to pay that difference,” Sarah Bahezre, manager of the bus transportation company Ulysse Cars, told The Associated Press.

Average U.S. diesel prices climbed 44% over the last month, according to AAA.

A few weeks ago, Rachel Hunter paid $3.62 a gallon to fill the single diesel truck used by Cactus Crew Junk Removal & Thrift Store, a Phoenix business she and her husband co-founded. The same fuel now costs $6.09 per gallon in Phoenix, according to AAA.

The truck carries all kinds of heavy cargo, from slabs of solid maple bowling lanes to loads of concrete paver tiles. So fuel costs quickly add up, Hunter said, particularly with a truck that only gets 12 or 13 miles to the gallon.

Hunter has started quoting prices that reflect the jump in prices. She worries she’s in a “vicious circle” that could hurt the business if oil prices remain high.

“We don’t want to get a bad name for being overpriced,” she says. “I’ll be able to explain it where people can understand, but it doesn’t mean they can afford it.”

Assembly Bill 2189, authored by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove, won’t solve all the problems in special education — such as too few qualified teachers and state and federal funding that isn’t keeping pace — at least not directly. But supporters say the bill is crucial if California wants to tackle any of these thorny issues.

“The parent voice does not exist in California,” said Jordan Lindsey, executive director of The Arc of California, a statewide chapter of a national organization that advocates for Americans with disabilities. “You can propose something that’s super impactful, but if you don’t have big buy-in, you don’t have the power to make it happen.”

The Arc of California is a sponsor of the bill, which would authorize the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to award an $800,000 grant annually, over a course of three years, to a statewide advocacy organization “for the purpose of providing special education pupils and their families with information regarding special education advocacy and rights.”

Nearly 900,000 students in California TK-12 schools — or about 15% of students — qualify for special education. Several active local organizations in many California communities are dedicated to training and organizing parents, including community advisory committees and family resource centers. 

But that doesn’t necessarily translate into coordination and action in Sacramento, according to Lindsey. He said that too often, statewide special education hearings have few, if any, parents showing up to discuss how funding or legislation affects their children.

“Good bills die, things that could really help students, die,” said Christine Case-Lo, a Sonoma County mother of two children with disabilities. “There is this idea that it’s not needed, because those parent and student voices are not heard at the state level.”

Case-Lo serves as a volunteer on the public policy board of the Arc of California and has long advocated for the organization to take on this issue.

The Arc of California could be eligible to lead the statewide effort if the bill passes. While the organization currently focuses more on services for adult Californians with disabilities, its counterparts in other states advocate at the student level, Lindsey said. He added that the board chose to sponsor this bill regardless of whether the group leads the initiative.

“I said, OK, whether it’s us or not, what we need to do is be purposeful about it. And our board of directors this year in the fall committed and said, we have to,” Lindsey said. The primary catalyst for pushing this bill now, he said, is what is happening at the federal level under the Trump administration.

The U.S. Department of Education shuttered seven of 12 regional branches of the Office for Civil Rights, including its California office, which reviews discrimination complaints on the basis of gender, race and age, but most involve disability.

“We have terrible oversight in the state of California for special education. We have often simply depended on the federal system, especially the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education, to be the effective oversight for extreme problems in special education,” Case-Lo said. “We can’t depend on that anymore.”

The Arc of California partnered with Nguyen, the mother of an 11-year-old with a developmental and intellectual disability, who brought her daughter to the Capitol on Developmental Disabilities Day of the California State Assembly. Nguyen said she knows there’s a hunger for representation at the state level, because parents reach out to her all the time. 

“This is a great opportunity to pull everybody together to talk about what works, what doesn’t work, but to talk about what is also needed,” Nguyen said.