Appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in December of 2020 to replace Alex Padilla, whom he had just appointed to the United States Senate, Weber has experienced one embarrassing gaffe after another. She doesn’t seem to learn from her mistakes and she never really apologizes after getting caught abusing or grossly misinterpreting the law to punish her political adversaries.

In many ways, she’s perfect for a Newsom appointee.

I’d love to know who else was on Newsom’s short list to be secretary…Fraulein Helga from Hogan’s Heroes?

Let’s take a brief look at some of Weber’s “greatest hits.”

In a statement issued last Friday, the California Secretary of State’s Office acknowledged a mistake that led to Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Christina Pascucci receiving a “No Ballot Designation” identifier on both the March 5 primary ballot and the accompanying voter guide.

Pascucci, a former Los Angeles TV news journalist, should have received the designation “Local Television Journalist,” according to a statement from Secretary Shirley Weber’s office.

The mistake has been corrected online, but it is too late to fix the ballots or official voter information guides. Weber’s office said it was “an administrative error” that led to the mistake.

The phrase, “I’m sorry” never appeared anywhere in her statement.

In response, Pascucci took to X and said, “It’s a huge deal because voters use the ballot designation to guide them when they cast their vote. I’m going to be frank: This is bad and it doesn’t just affect my campaign, it could impact the overall results of this election. Our team has been dealing with this for a month. The Secretary of State admitted ‘an unfortunate internal clerical error’ and issued a correction via press release and on social media late Friday. That doesn’t fix the harm caused.”

No kidding. Weber’s inability to perform the basic duties of her office harmed Pascucci irreparably. Dare I suggest she sue?

In Bakersfield, Weber said that Republican Assemblyman Vince Fong could not run for Congress because he had already qualified to run for the Assembly before a December deadline.

Fong did sue Weber, saying that her office’s job is to “receive and file” nomination documents, not to decide who is eligible to run. His lawyers argued that state law does not prevent Fong from running for both Congress and the 32nd Assembly District, which he currently represents.

In December, Judge Shelleyanne Chang granted Fong’s request to run for Congress, reversing Weber’s decision.

With the campaign now in full swing, Weber is appealing the decision in California’s Third Appellate District, still attempting to disqualify Fong as a candidate.

In response, Brian Hildreth, an attorney for Fong, told the Fresno Bee, “This is an unprecedented attempt by the secretary of state to disqualify the ballots of potentially tens of thousands of Central Valley voters.”

Ya think?

And in the 2021 recall campaign of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, then candidate and long time radio talk show host Larry Elder beat Weber in court after she tried to keep him off the ballot, for what she described as not filling out the proper paperwork.

Superior Court Judge Laurie M. Earl disagreed and ruled that, “I don’t find Mr. Elder was required to file a tax return at all…I would find he substantially complied.”

As a result, Weber was forced to list Elder’s name on the ballot.

Weird that Weber, a Democrat, has tried to prevent three candidates,  a moderate Democrat and two Republicans, from winning elective office.

Shirley Weber has got some nerve, trying to stop Californians from voting for the candidate of their choice.  Who does she think she is, Fani Willis?

As Secretary of State, Weber has proven to be anti-democratic, bad at her job, and pretty shameless about it.

Seems to me, she’s a genuine “threat to democracy.”

John Phillips can be heard weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. on “The John Phillips Show” on KABC/AM 790.

For a few, the decision to leave is easy and reasons numerous. Who wouldn’t want better job opportunities, a tax cut and a lower cost of living? But for many more, it’s a tough call.

Older Californians often stay for their children and grandchildren. But young people, who would otherwise prefer to stay in California for the lifestyle and recreation, are ultimately compelled to pack up and go because of the ridiculously high housing costs. They simply can’t afford not to leave.

Those of us who speak and write frequently on the state’s legendary dysfunctional governance hear the same question from those who remain uncertain of the future of California: Is there any hope for California and what would it take to put the state back on track?

We don’t have a crystal ball, but it would depend almost entirely on the extent to which voters reject the dysfunctional one-party rule that has inflicted so much damage on the Golden State. If they did, fundamental change could happen much faster than one might think.

Take Argentina, for example. At the beginning of the 20th century the country’s name was synonymous with wealth. With vast reserves of natural resources, including minerals and millions of acres of productive land, Argentina was one of the richest nations in the world on a per capita basis. But starting in the 40s, the country began its long struggle with inflation. Today, at a whopping 211%, Argentina’s rate of inflation is the highest in the world. But persistent inflation was only part of the nation’s economic woes. Crushing regulations brought about by a hard socialist administrative state prevented any semblance of a free-market economy.

Argentinians had had enough. Voters recently elected the self-described anarcho-libertarian, Javier Milei, who is attempting to repair the poor economy he inherited with radical pro-market shock therapy. Dislodging an entrenched deep state won’t be easy, but it is notable that Milei’s political base is made up in large part of young voters who seem exceptionally motivated to embrace the reforms of the new president.

Another example of radical changes in a nation from statism to free-market democracy is, of course, the demise of the Soviet Union, initiated with Ronald Reagan’s challenge: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” While Russia itself can hardly be called a free-market state – it’s more like a kleptocracy – dozens of former Soviet satellite states are enjoying freedoms that they never had when they were locked behind the Iron Curtain.

Here in the United States, recent years have seen several historic shifts toward more conservative, free-market-based legislative bodies. In 2016, the Kentucky House of Representatives, the state’s lower house, not only flipped from Progressive to Republican control for the first time in nearly 100 years, but also secured a super-majority of representatives.

Although incremental changes in the body politic are probably the norm, these examples demonstrate what can happen when a majority of voters reach the breaking point over the way they are being governed. And it doesn’t necessarily result only in the election of politicians.

A 57% majority of Californians think the state is on the wrong track, according to a recent poll by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

Change won’t be easy. California’s entire political structure is aligned against change and favors the status quo. But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

This time it’s for “Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee,” which is currently dedicated to passing Proposition 1 on the March 5 statewide ballot.

The measure is terrible, but the collecting business is going very well.

In January, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria kicked in $1.5 million. In December, contributions of $1 million each came from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the California Hospital Committee on Issues Sponsored by the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals, and the Members’ Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.

Sutter Health donated $1 million in October and another $150,000 in January. The Service Employees International Union Political Education and Action Fund contributed $500,000 in December, and SEIU Local 2015’s PAC added $275,000 more. The California Building Industry Association Issues Committee donated $250,000, and so did the Issues PAC of the California State Council of Laborers.

Blue Shield of California gave $200,000. Elevance Health, together with its affiliate Anthem Blue Cross, donated $125,000.

Uber gave more than $300,000, Doordash threw in $100,000, and Airbnb wrote a check for $50,000.

Five- and six-figure donations came in from associations representing law enforcement officers, dentists, domestic workers, teachers, firefighters, new car dealers, doctors and nurses. Generous donations came in from Dimension Energy, LLC, in Atlanta and the Community Solar Action Fund in Washington, D.C.

Sensing a pattern here?

The government of California directly negotiates contracts that determine the pay and benefits of a lot of people. It also legislates mandates that can make the vendors of certain products and services extraordinarily wealthy, or can put them out of business.

When the governor of California comes collecting, he never goes home empty-handed.

As with the governor’s campaign committee to fight the recall, there is no contribution limit on donations to a ballot measure committee. There’s also no limit on behested payments, a category of giving that Newsom has used to raise huge sums from entities with business before the state.

Newsom asked for and received payments totaling over $4.2 million to fund his 2023 inaugural festivities. The list of donors who made these payments “at the behest” of the governor is remarkably similar to the list of donors giving to the governor’s ballot measure committee in support of Proposition 1.

It seems like this kind of activity would end in handcuffs, but it’s completely legal in California as long as the forms are filled out correctly.

According to its most recent form, Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee had $14.2 million in cash on hand as of January 20. Expect to see TV commercials and stacks of campaign mail, all paid for by special-interest money, to sell you on Proposition 1.

Don’t fall for it.

Proposition 1 borrows money to pay for more of the same homelessness policy that has shown no success despite billions of dollars of spending. The measure authorizes the state to add $6.38 billion to California’s already $80 billion bond debt, but that money buys only 6,800 treatment beds and “up to” 4,350 housing units. With interest, $6.38 billion could cost $12 billion by the time taxpayers finish paying back the debt.

About $4.4 billion would be spent building unspecified “places” for mental health or addiction treatment. All decisions about what to build and where to build it will be made by the state sometime in the future. It’s a blank check.

Two billion dollars would go into the program that currently gives local governments money to buy and renovate hotels, turning them into housing with optional services on-site. Proposition 1 requires these projects to pay the “prevailing wage” for construction labor, raising costs considerably. The projects also are required to comply with the core principles of Housing First, meaning no one can be required to participate in a sobriety or treatment program as a condition of receiving this housing.

You might not want one of these projects in your neighborhood given that the housing units may be awarded to people who are actively using hard drugs, potentially turning the building and the community into a magnet for dealers and problems.

The proponents of Proposition 1 already thought of that,  and here’s what they did about it: they removed the ability for communities to have any input into the approval or location of these projects. The measure requires streamlined, ministerial approval.

To fool Californians into voting for Proposition 1, the governor has been emphasizing that it will help veterans. In fact, only 2,350 housing units are projected to be built for veterans from this $6.38 billion bond. That’s a lot of money for not much help.

But the worst part of Proposition 1 is its robbery of county mental health services funding.

Counties will also be required to spend their limited funds to operate the new “places” for treatment that the state will build with the Proposition 1 bond money.

We can guess what happens next. If Proposition 1 passes in March, the counties will start putting tax increases on the ballot in November. They’ll tell voters there’s not enough money for urgently needed programs such as suicide prevention.

It’s easy to avoid these problems. Vote no on Proposition 1, and tell a friend.

Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter @Susan_Shelley

Not enough of us, apparently.

I realize that on this, its holiest of days, the United States of Football is a vast nation, that we contain multitudes among our 336 million people, and that conspiracy theorists will be and always have been among us.

I mean, when I was a little kid, a good friend of my moderate Dad was a member of the John Birch Society, because they shared a love for Dixieland jazz.

At 6 or 7 years old, I couldn’t quite get my hands around what that meant, not being able to see that nice old guy who formerly saved the free world from Nazism and then was president, Dwight D. from Kansas, as a tool of the international Communist conspiracy.

My Mom said, “Well, Lawrence, you know that poster that’s up in the Altadena Barber Shop?” I did, as I had stared at it while getting my regular boy’s cut. It was a rendering of Uncle Sam, and it read: “He’s your uncle, not your dad.”

“Right, Mother — I still don’t get it.”

And so while I do get that people will do and say crazy things, I perhaps naively still can’t believe that these days, when they do and say them, they will get amplified by a major television news network I am reliably informed is watched by tens of millions of Americans.

The very idea that Tay Tay, America’s sweetheart, a great songwriter and singer, a businesswoman smart enough to become a billionaire herself, dating a very American-looking tight end, is, like Eisenhower, a dupe of the commies? That’s nuts. Obviously. But it’s simply another item up for discussion, according to Fox News.

It’s one thing for the American kooks, God love them, to believe, or say they believe, that Taylor Swift dating Travis Kelce is a sure sign that the libtards conspired to get the Kansas City Chiefs into the Super Bowl, because sure as shooting she’s going to take the field at halftime Sunday and announce her impending nuptials as well as her endorsement of Joe Biden. One thing.

But for Fox to encourage that conversation? How can people still turn the channel on?

On something called “Jesse Watters Primetime,” the host said: “Around four years ago, the Pentagon’s psychological operations unit floated turning Taylor Swift into an asset. It’s real. The Pentagon Psyop unit pitched NATO on turning Taylor Swift into an asset for combating misinformation online.”

Then Fox anchor Jeanine Pirro begged Swift to not “get involved in politics” so as not to alienate any segment of her Swiftie fans.

But Fox’s Charly Arnolt, pleaded, “Please don’t believe everything Taylor Swift says.” Its Sean Hannity said: “Maybe she wants to think twice.”

Then former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy wrote on X: “I wonder who’s going to win the Super Bowl … And I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped-up couple.”

“Wonder” means the fix is in, sports fans. Place your bets accordingly.

Larry Wilson is on the Southern California News Group editorial board. lwilson@scng.com.

The cultural calendar used to be crammed with important “must see” events. The State of the Union Address, Inauguration Day, and the Academy Awards were all once big draws. Not even New Year’s Eve packs the punch it once did, with more people bragging about not celebrating than posting pics of their wild, all-night bacchanals. SNL is pretty much DOA. Let’s face it, we’re not interested in seeing anything live anymore. Even church on Sunday has fallen out of fashion, more of a hobby than an obligation.

But not football! And especially not the Super Bowl, the High-Holy Day of secular spectacles.

With so many eyes glued to the tube all at once, advertisers shell out enormous sums to hawk their wares, while super star performers consider headlining the Halftime Show a career highlight. Is it any wonder politicians want a piece of the action?

The political traditions around the big game are mostly benign, with the mayors of the cities involved concocting civic pride wagers, usually involving a local delicacy. (This year it’s BBQ.) Richard Nixon started the tradition of calling the winning team’s locker room after the game way back in Super Bowl IV, and the TV networks started running softball interviews with sitting presidents during the Obama years, a gift during an election year. Yet, for the second year in a row, Joe Biden has punted, possibly a smart move considering how most Joe Biden speaking engagements go these days.

Or does Team Biden have a trick play up their sleeves?

According to recent GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, the NFL, a notoriously crooked organization that snubbed Donald Trump when he wanted to buy the Buffalo Bills, is in cahoots with Biden to fix the Super Bowl. This doozie was echoed by FOX News host, Jesse Watters, Laura Loomer(the too crazy even for Florida congressional candidate) as well as a cornucopia of  conspiracy kooks online and possibly in your family.

The plot goes something like this: the refs will make sure Kansas City wins so Taylor’s boyfriend (and Pfizer huckster) Travis Kelce can pop the question to Swift on the field as confetti rains down upon them. Then, the newly engaged Swift, will turn to the cameras and endorse Joe Biden for reelection.

When Ms. Swift endorsed Biden in 2020 it didn’t make much of a ripple. But the historic success of Taylor’s “Eras Tour” means everything Swift does today is a big deal. The NFL has profited from cutaways to her celebrating with Kelcy’s family at Chief’s games throughout the season, and voter registration drives have benefited in everywhere Swift has performed. Apparently, the Republican Party fears they will lose the Swiftie vote.

The only thing that would tick off Trump voters more than a Biden endorsement would be a cutaway to Swift’s luxury suite catching her shot-gunning Bud Lights with Dylan Mulvaney, Colin Kaepernick and Hunter Biden.

The nexus between showbiz and politics is as old as showbiz itself. In the Old World, royalty had jesters and favored court composers and painters while the Vatican showered wealth and fame on Michelangelo, Caravaggio and Raphel among others. With the birth of recorded music and film stars like George M. Cohan, Charles Chaplin and others were put into service to sell war bonds. In the Second World War, Hollywood cranked out pro-government films including specific tributes to Franklin Roosevelt. Sinatra campaigned openly for FDR, and took the same heat Taylor Swift is getting for expressing her political views.

Celebrities have the same rights as the rest of us to express their opinions. And we have the right to boycott their work if we choose to do so.

But not many are boycotting the NFL.

So, vote for whoever you like, vote against whoever you despise. Buy or don’t buy Taylor Swift’s music, but for three hours on Super Bowl Sunday, we can ignore all the noise and enjoy great athletes doing great things and watch some funny commercials while stuffing ourselves with pigs-in-a-blanket and hoping our team covers the spread. The day after, we’ll go over every big play, every dud commercial or great one we missed and talk to each other like friends, you know, like we used to.

Doug McIntyre column appears Sundays. Reach him at: Doug@DougMcIntyre.com.

That’s partly because of what’s happened with the state’s separate but not yet official mandate that public school districts teach a one-semester ethnic studies curriculum as a requirement for graduation. Where they exist, many such classes have become hotbeds of anti-Israel lies and half-truths that border on outright promotion of Jew hatred.

This has occurred in some districts that jumped the gun on ethnic studies, hiring members of the Critical Ethnic Studies Association (CESA) to write programs before they’ve become a requirement. Some of those hired were among authors of two versions of the state ethnic studies curriculum that were both rejected by state education officials as anti-white, anti-Western and anti-Semitic, with rewrites ordered both times.

So far, there are no precise statewide standards for what must be taught, letting districts and classroom teachers design their own programs. But CESA, to which many UC and California State University ethnic studies faculty members belong, specifies classes should “analyze, confront and intellectually dismantle… institutionalized forms of racism, apartheid, settler colonialism and empire in and beyond the United States.”

So when CESA members write curricula, classroom emphasis is often not on building pride and self-esteem in all children, as envisioned by legislators who enabled an ethnic studies course, but instead stresses resentments, divisions and fault-finding.

That’s no surprise considering that some UC and Cal State academic departments use state-funded equipment and official websites to promote hatred of ethnic groups they despise and, more than any other country, the state of Israel. Within the last month, 405 non-ethnic studies faculty at UC signed a letter calling on their system’s Board of Regents to stop professors from using state-funded resources for promoting personal points of view.

They pointed to the Critical Race and Ethnic Studies Department at UC Santa Cruz as an egregious example of using its website and classrooms to promote anti-Israel activity that all UC campus chancellors have unanimously condemned as “a direct and serious threat to the academic freedom of students and faculty.” And they noted that state-supported anti-Israel activity has stepped up since the Oct. 7 Hamas kidnap/massacre of more than 1,500 Israelis. That included encouraging students to participate in a “Shut it down for Palestine” protest rally. All this runs counter to system-wide UC policies proscribing use of public funds and facilities to push private views.

The faculty letter noted similarly illegal misuse of websites and facilities at UC Merced and UC San Diego, among others.

But any distortions there have been mild compared to some of the high school classroom materials now in use. This academic malpractice is nowhere more egregious than at Woodside High School and Menlo Atherton High School, both components of the Redwood City-based Sequoia Union High School District.

Via radio broadcasts, they asked Arab residents to leave so they could operate more freely. The materials do not mention that Israel at the time told Palestinian Arabs to stay put, warning that if they left, they would not be allowed to return. Nor do the materials mention that simultaneously, more than 800,000 longtime Jewish residents were forcibly expropriated and expelled by Arab countries from north Africa to Iraq and Syria, and then immediately taken in by Israel as full citizens.

All this comprises a solid argument for delaying any statewide ethnic studies requirement until firm guidelines demanding factuality and prevention of falsehoods and propaganda are put in place.

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com.

Meanwhile, progressives are hatching attacks on “disinformation” that threaten the foundations of the Constitution. Republicans share some responsibility, as they’ve backed various proposals targeting Big Tech out of pique about the censorship of conservative views. These ideas included limits on liability protections for posted content and plans to treat social-media sites as public utilities.

Conservatives have already shown a willingness to insert government into speech considerations, so they are left flat-footed as leftists hatch plots to rejigger open debate. Whenever the Right plays footsie with big government, the Left then ups the ante – and conservatives end up wondering what happened. What is happening now is an effort to use legitimate concerns about internet distortions to squelch what we read and say.

Traditionally, Americans of all political stripes have accepted that – except for a few strictly limited circumstances – people can say whatever they choose. The nation’s libel laws impose civil penalties on those who have engaged in defamatory speech, but those laws are narrowly tailored so the threat of lawsuits doesn’t halt legitimate speech. This emanates from the First Amendment, which said Congress shall make “no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Such protections were applied to all governments, of course. The courts wrestle with gray areas (commercial and corporate speech, pornography, political advertising), but our nation thankfully has tilted heavily in the direction of upholding the broadest speech rights. This legal framework has been bolstered by a broad consensus among the citizenry that speech rights are sacrosanct. There always have been those people who want to police speech, but they have largely been outliers.

The internet and the information free for all that’s followed has challenged that consensus. When I first got into the journalism business, Americans had limited access to information. We could read the daily newspaper, which didn’t cover many issues and where editors served as gatekeepers. We could watch the network news at 6 p. or subscribe to magazines. There was no internet or cable news. Talk radio was in its infancy. Now anyone can post anything online and traditional news sources are struggling.

In the old days, I was routinely frustrated by the strict gatekeeping, as it was hard to find viewpoints that diverged from the accepted mainstream point of view. Now, we all have information overload, and it’s hard to know what to believe. These days, Americans can’t even agree on a basic set of facts before developing an opinion. Russian and Chinese bot farms churn out obvious disinformation. Outright falsehoods spread like wildfire and become accepted truths among large groups of Americans.

Concerns about internet conspiracies are not unwarranted, but efforts to address those problems – especially ones that rely on government – pose dangers to our rights as Americans. It’s one thing to target a concerted online disinformation campaign from the Chinese Communist Party, but quite another to clamp down on “misinformation” – ideas and facts that one might find to be inaccurate or based on shoddy and biased reasoning.

In a 2021 Harvard Gazette article, Harvard Law School professor Martha Minow argued that the Federal Communications Commission should “withhold licenses, remove them, terminate them, for companies that are misleading people.” In other words, federal bureaucrats would be tasked with determining what amounts to “misleading people” and then yank the licenses of broadcast news outlets that failed to conform to that standard. 

Think about how that would play out. Many public-health officials have railed against COVID-19 misinformation, and yet we later learned that the officials’ solutions turned out to be wrong and that critics raised important points. That’s how life works in a free society. Different people make different claims and then evidence unfolds, albeit in a messy and imprecise manner. How often have we found that official sources get things terribly wrong?

It’s unclear how this new regimen will play out, but it’s a good guess it will mean creepy government control over our discourse. Be prepared, as such “questioning” will only increase as a political movement at home with canceling verboten speech offers specific solutions. Conservatives may rue the day they ever toyed with speech limitations.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

The latest example is Senate Bill 567, which severely limits when owners can require tenants to vacate the property. Before this bill, housing providers could terminate tenancy once a lease ends when they wanted to convert the unit for another use. Perhaps they want to move a family member into the home and take it off the rental market for a time. It is their property, after all. 

Now, California’s leaders have made it even more challenging for housing providers to use their property as they choose. If a landlord pursues a “no fault just cause eviction” to convert the property for personal occupancy, SB 567 now requires a landlord or family member to reside in the unit for at least a one-year before they sell it or list it again on the rental market. It would also require them to move in within a narrow time period — hardly enough time to improve or repair any property, given the layers of permitting and bureaucracy that local governments impose. This restriction certainly makes it harder for landlords to reclaim their property for personal use.

Perversely, this law could result in many small landlords not making their units available for rent at all. Specifically, small-scale landlords, like individuals who may rent out a property for extra income but also want the freedom to sell it, let friends or family stay temporarily, or use it for personal reasons, might decide against renting out their property altogether.

Another law that takes effect this year, AB 12, prohibits landlords from asking for more than a month’s rent as a security deposit. The bill’s supporters justified the change as one of equity, stating that “expensive security deposits are often imposed on immigrants and people of color, effectively limiting access to safe and affordable housing.” These supporters ignore the fact that larger security deposits are precisely how housing providers hedge their risk with disadvantaged renters in the absence of sufficient creditworthiness or consistent, verifiable income. 

Removing higher security deposit requirements will not lead to “equity.” It will lead to landlords only being willing to rent to tenants with higher incomes and established credit histories to reduce risk. The very categories of people lawmakers claim to be protecting will find themselves worse off.

Behind these new laws is a narrative that portrays landlords as corporate giants who can easily absorb government-imposed burdens. However, these interventions may exacerbate the high rents and housing supply shortages in California.

Supporters pretend that they can stabilize rents by restricting what housing providers can do with their property, how they manage risk, and capping housing providers’ ability to pass along rising costs. In accepting this narrative, our lawmakers seem ignorant of the very ways they have themselves created the conditions for these higher rents and reduced housing supply through decades of rent control and other market interventions.

If previous government interference, like rent control — in the form of prohibiting or severely restricting the amount a housing provider can raise rent every year — failed to lower prices, these most recent misguided attempts will predictably fail to stabilize what are already some of the highest rents in the nation. And these new laws are even more intrusive and onerous than other rental laws — giving any rational property owner pause before renting their property.

Repealing laws restricting what housing providers do with their property after a lease has ended would go a long way toward expanding the housing stock. Symbolic, yet ultimately harmful, restrictions on the types of agreements landlords and tenants can make must end. 

While they’re at it, toning down the rhetoric about tenants having the right to others’ property would help housing providers feel more confident that their investments are secure.  Anything less will only perpetuate the current housing crisis.

Melissa Melendez previously served as a California State Senator and Assemblymember. She is now Executive Director of the California Chapter of the America First Policy Institute.

With the Republican incumbents first, they are Jorge Valdes vs. Beatriz Mendoza in Area 1, Ken Williams vs. Nancy Watson in Area 3 and Tim Shaw vs. David Johnson in Area 4. The key difference is the Republicans strongly support charter schools, while the Democrats want more restrictions. Charters are public schools operating largely outside the labyrinthine, 2,000-page California Education Code. 

Why do parents have dozens of choices for the SUVs in which they ferry their kids to school, but are limited to just one local school unless there are charters?

The contrast with the Los Angeles Unified School district is clear. In 2022 its school board flipped from pro-charter to anti-charter, and since has been severely restricting charters. Let’s not do that in Orange County. For students to achieve, parents need school choice.

The OC Board of Supervisors flipped to a Democrat majority in 2022 for the first time since the dreaded Disco Era. That majority will not change after this election as only two GOP seats are up for grabs. If both Democrats win, the board will be all Democrat. Again, do we want Orange County to become LA, where four of five supervisors are Democrats?

In District 3, incumbent Republican Don Wagner goes against Farrah Khan, mayor of Irvine, where I now live. Wagner has been good on most issues. On her website, Khan boasts “she initiated and passed the city-wide ban on smoking in public places,” another Nanny State nuisance. So I can’t smoke a stogie on the sidewalk now? Some things are intolerable. 

In District 1, the main candidates are Republican Janet Nguyen, a former supervisor and current state senator, against Democrat Frances Marquez, a member of the Cypress City Council. I’ve known Nguyen for two decades and she would bring fiscal responsibility to the board. In the interview with our editorial board, Marquez said a couple of times she would solve fiscal problems by getting more money from the federal government – which is $34 trillion in debt.

Since I moved to O.C. in 1987 to write for the Register, In the past I’ve lived in Huntington Beach 28 years. I love Surf City and go there often. I was heartened that voters elected a strong conservative majority to the city council. Unfortunately, the council has forgotten a major conservative principle: responsible governance. 

It has put before voters three unneeded measures. Although initiatives are a key part of California Democracy, they ought to be used sparingly, for only the most pressing issues. 

Measure A asks, “for all municipal elections, the City: may require Voter Identification for elections; provide more in-person voting locations; and monitor ballot drop-boxes, be approved?” Notice it says “may,” which could mean “may not.” But the main problem is it violates current state election law and would be thrown out in court.

Measure B limits the flags flown on city property. The council already has this authority.

Measure C would enact a two-year budget, which would be good. But it also allows the mayor or a council majority to cancel council meetings, provided one is held a month. That’s too much power for the mayor.

Let’s flip back to Irvine, long ridiculed by me and others as the Beige City, but which I really like now that I’m here. On the ballot is Measure D, which would shift the council from five at-large districts to seven members. Six would be elected in districts, with the mayor elected citywide. 

I usually favor expanding elected body membership to increase representation. And Irvine now is a large city of more than 313,000, meaning districts are more suitable. I’m voting yes and hope the new arrangement will restore my freedom to pursue my favorite vice.

John Seiler is on the SCNG Editorial Board and blogs at: johnseiler.substack.com

Before the words even left my mouth, the crowd at the Redondo Beach Center for the Performing Arts jumped to their feet and cheered as if Taylor Swift had walked on stage rather than a fiscally and socially conservative former congresswoman from Wyoming whose father is Dick Cheney.

Liz Cheney? A standing O in the 310?

Add this to the list of once inconceivable things that now happen on a regular basis thanks to Donald J. Trump.

I had the honor of hosting Ms. Cheney for the Distinguished Speaker Series of Southern California. At each event (Redondo Beach, Thousand Oaks, Pasadena, and Long Beach) Cheney was greeted like a rock star. Her role as vice chair of the Congressional Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection turned her into a favorite in the bluest of blue states where she was previously seen as a knuckle-dragging right-winger.

Meanwhile, her belief that Donald Trump is unfit for elective office turned her from a beloved conservative icon in Wyoming, the reddest of red states, into a traitorous turncoat they couldn’t wait to fire at the ballot box the first chance they got.

Ms. Cheney does not care.

While appreciative of the support she receives, she is as unseduced by adulation as she is unmoved by the hatred directed her way. Cheney’s sole objective post 01/06/21 is defending the United States Constitution and the rule of law, which means doing everything she can to ensure Donald J. Trump is never elected again.

Over the course of her stay in Southern California, Liz Cheney recapped the damning facts uncovered in sworn testimony before Congress, almost entirely from Donald Trump’s closest advisors and appointees, including his Attorney General, White House Council, and even his son-in-law and daughter, Ivanka.

“The facts are all that matter,” says Cheney. And the defining fact of January 6 is this: the president of the United States called a mob to Washington, fired them up with lies about a stolen election, and then exploited their patriotism with the express purpose of stopping the peaceful transfer of power, subverting the very essence of America. This is not an opinion, rather the only conclusion that can possibly be drawn from a fair reading of the facts.

Ms. Cheney tells the entire sordid story in her book, “Oath and Honor: a Memoir and a Warning,” a must read for every American. Sadly, the people who most need the facts will not seek them out. Critics of Cheney and the January 6th committee dismiss the investigation as a “partisan witch hunt” yet proudly boast they didn’t watch it. I’m talking about you, Senator Tom Cotton.

Of course, not everyone in Southern California was thrilled Liz Cheney was in town.

“The economy was better under Trump, the border was secure, there were no major wars. How can you not support him?” asked one gentleman.

Ms. Cheney’s response? “Because I’m not willing to sacrifice the United States Constitution to any man.”

I greatly respect the folks who came to hear Cheney who went in disliking her.

Liz Cheney understood she was likely to lose her seat in congress by standing up for the Constitution. She did so without hesitation. Someday, hopefully, she will be appreciated by all Americans for taking this stand. But the jury is decidedly out.

As Ms. Cheney reminds us, in 1789, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Congress, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government had been created?

“A Republic,” said Franklin. “If you can keep it.”

Doug McIntyre’s column appears Sundays. His novel, “Frank’s Shadow” is available at Amazon.com. Reach him at: Doug@DougMcIntyre.com.