Trash Police, Sex Offenders, and Power Grabs – This Week in California Politics!
This week in California politics, we have a governor trying to strip power from an office before a Republican can take it over, a bill designed to keep convicted sex offenders out of public office that somehow ended up creating exceptions for criminals, and yes – government officials inspecting the trash you throw away.
If that sounds unbelievable, unfortunately, it's all real. And if there's one takeaway from today's episode, it's this: the decisions being made by our politicians affect every one of us. Which is exactly why it is so important that we are informed about what’s coming up on California's November ballot – so that we can make change wherever possible, away from all this craziness.
The Trash Police Are Here!
We have some very important news to cover today…because yes, the rumors are true, Gavin Newsom has ordered that state officials spend their time INSPECTING YOUR TRASH!
Let’s back up. This all traces back to Senate Bill 1383, originally passed back in 2016. This law requires California cities and counties to reduce the amount of organic waste sent to landfills by 75% compared to 2014 levels. According to “the experts,” landfills emit 20% of our state’s methane, which is touted as a “climate super pollutant.”[1] Our beloved Governor repeated this goal at the United Nations climate conference last year, touting himself as someone taking climate change very seriously and passing legislation in his own state to reduce the main drivers of it.[2]
There’s just one, minor problem: we completely failed to hit the targets set out for us in the legislation. There are benchmarks for years 2020, 2025, and 2030 that our state has not been hitting. According to the CEO of RE: CIRCLE Solutions, a California food-waste processing company, organic waste going to landfills increased by roughly one million tons between 2014 and 2020. [3] Meaning that instead of moving toward the state's target, we moved in the opposite direction.
So, what's the solution? Rather than reconsider whether the policy itself is realistic, many cities are ramping up enforcement to comply with the law. In Sacramento, for example, residents' trash, recycling, and organic waste bins are now being inspected to make sure materials are being placed in the proper containers. As Sacramento official, Jesa David, explained, “Any container that we touch will either get a 'great job' tag or a 'let's sort this out' tag. But either way, we want to provide education and make sure everyone knows the resources that they have available to sort their waste correctly."[4]
Now, if you are thinking this is insane – you would be correct! I mean, where are we, COMMUNIST CHINA? If we think about this seriously for just a minute, we see that 1) California passed a sweeping climate mandate, 2) failed to achieve the results it promised, and 3) now the answer isn't to revisit the policy, but it's to inspect what ordinary Californians throw away. The reality is that a single household accidentally throwing away a banana peel or a few paper towels isn't going to determine whether California meets its “climate goals.” But to actually inspect millions of residential bins requires employees, vehicles, training, administration, and taxpayer dollars – all to police tiny individual actions that, on their own, have an almost immeasurable impact. This is just the latest example of performative politics in our state – actions that won’t drive comprehensive reform to make your life here better but are virtue signals politicians use to claim they are taking bold action.
Newsom’s Education Power Grab
But unsurprisingly, that is not the worst thing to happen in California politics recently! You may have heard about some recent controversy around the Education Department, which relates specifically to the results of the primary elections. As a reminder, one of the offices we voted on in the primary was the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Per the California Department of Education’s own website, the Superintendent is responsible for, “enforcing education law and regulations; and for continuing to reform and improve public elementary school programs, secondary school programs, adult education, some preschool programs, and childcare programs.”[5] Essentially, this is the person who runs the California Department of Education and serves as the public face of K–12 education policy.
In the primary, conservative candidate Sonja Shaw won with 25% of the vote, meaning she will advance to November alongside the second-place candidate, Richard Barrera.[6] Shaw is phenomenal. She advocates for protecting girls’ and women’s sports in schools, preserving parental rights in the classroom, and focusing on academic excellence over ideology in our public school system.[7]
But, of course, this is a problem for our Democrat-controlled state. No one who thinks differently from the entrenched liberal establishment is allowed to have any say here. So of course, Gavin Newsom has gotten himself involved before she even has a chance to win in the general election.
As part of the part of the 2026–27 state budget, Newsom and the Legislature enacted a major restructuring of California's education governance system that significantly reduces the power of the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction and shifts much of that authority to a new education commissioner appointed by the governor. Beginning January 15, 2027, the Superintendent will no longer directly manage the California Department of Education. Instead, a governor-appointed education commissioner – someone voters have no say in electing – will take over many of the day-to-day administrative powers and responsibilities.[8] The Superintendent will still exist, but the office will have a much smaller operational role. Under the new structure, the Superintendent becomes a member of the State Board of Education rather than the person directly managing the department.
Now, did the Superintendent really have much power and authority over the direction of public education to begin with? Not entirely. Voters elected the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to lead the Department of Education, but the governor appointed the officials on the State Board of Education, and the Legislature controlled funding and laws. That meant that even before this change, the governor could push one education agenda while the independently elected superintendent chosen by the voters oversaw the system responsible for implementing it.[9]
Supporters of this change argue that exact point. They say that California's education system has long suffered from a confusing chain of command, and so this change creates clearer accountability. But the question to ask is: should clarity come at the expense of voter oversight?
While the system has been heavily spread across bureaucratic officials and agencies, California voters have rejected ballot measures to abolish the superintendent role FOUR times![10] It is literally protected under our state’s constitution to prevent the governor from having a massive concentration of power. To the voter, the role provides an independent voice, another set of eyes, over a system that would otherwise be entirely appointed by one person.
Even to some Democrats, Newsom’s move here to strip away all authority from the role ahead of the election where a Republican could win is a step too far. Senator Chris Cabaldon, a Napa Democrat, put it this way, “To me, it feels very deeply democratically cynical. That the voters four times before have said no to making these reforms. That we’re just gonna try to do it without them and leave in place the shell of what the constitution requires, in order to get around that.”[11] I couldn’t agree more.
Sure, Let’s Protect Pedophiles
But apparently, weakening the authority of an elected education official wasn’t enough for our state leaders. Because lawmakers also decided to tackle, and entirely mess up, another very important issue: how to handle politicians who have committed serious crimes.
Assembly Bill 2691, titled the Public Trust Protection Act, was originally written to prevent anyone convicted of felony sexual assault or human trafficking from running for or holding public office in the state of California.[12] This is in response to the recent, high-profile allegations of sexual assault brought against state representatives…*ahem* Eric Swalwell[13] and Graham Platner.[14] In April, the bill passed in the California Assembly with overwhelming support.[15]
Now, you might be thinking – what is there to discuss here? This sounds great! Anyone who has sexually assaulted or abused anyone, especially if they have been involved in human trafficking, is incapable of earning and maintaining the public’s trust, and so their actions have forfeited their ability to hold elected office. Done deal, good to go, pack it up! Not so fast. Unfortunately, as the bill has worked its way through the Senate, it has had some amendments made to it that are rather consequential.
The amendments made added exceptions to the original language and intent of the bill. Originally, AB 2691 was written so that any person who has committed crimes including rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration would be permanently banned from office. The amendments carve out exceptions for felony sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration when committed against a minor between the ages of 14 to 17.[16] This means that someone convicted of these crimes could not be considered for public office if they committed them against a victim 18 or older, or younger than 14 – but not if they were committed against teenagers in those exempted years.
How in the world does that make sense? The California Family Council does not believe it does and has been outspoken in opposition to the bill – which they would otherwise support. Greg Burt, CFC Vice President, testified against the bill, saying:
“Barring people convicted of felony sexual assault and human trafficking from holding public office is good policy. We want to support this bill. A person convicted of felony sexual assault against an adult would be barred from public office. A person convicted of those same acts against a minor would not be. Adult victim, you’re disqualified. Child victim, you may run for school board… It protects child victims least, exactly where protection matters most.”[17]
The amendments were made at the insistence of none other than Senator Scott Wiener, who could not even defend or give rationale for why he wanted these amendments made. When pressed, Senator Wiener accused critics’ concerns over the bill as being politically motivated rather than substantive[18] – which is clear projection if I’ve ever seen it.
Just so we understand how defeatist these amendments are to the original intent of the bill – under this law, a 22-year-old, 35-year-old, or even 60-year-old who commits felony sexual penetration against a 15-year-old would not be disqualified from public office. All those instances fall under the specific statutes carved out in the bill amended – including those that clearly define the crimes as occurring between an offender who is over 21 the victim is under 16.[19] It’s unthinkable.
Republican Senator Steven Choi said it perfectly, “I now believe that this bill must be opposed because of the absurd message that it sends, namely that it’s okay to have pedophiles and child groomers in elected office. Until heinous crimes involving minors are restored in the definition of a sexual assault under this bill, I would not be able to, in good conscience, support this bill.”[20]
Why should we oppose this bill with these changes? Two words: performative politics. In the same way that your state leaders think it’s a good use of time to dig through your trash to prove that they care about climate change, they also believe it’s a good idea to pass a bill showing they care about preventing sexual abuse from being perpetuated by the people meant to represent us…even though that bill fails to protect the most vulnerable people group – children – and punish the worst criminals among us – pedophilic sex offenders. We should not let them.
This is like an apartment complex saying, "For the safety of our residents, we're banning dangerous animals." Then, in the fine print, adding, "Except lions." You'd naturally ask, why in the world are you allowing one of the most dangerous animals?! What is this really preventing? It’s ludicrous, and it’s undefendable – even by the people pushing for it.
Upcoming Election…and Ballot Propositions!
What do we take away from all of this? The reality is that many of these decisions are already being made by the people currently in power. We may not have the ability to go back and change every law, every budget decision, or every policy that has been put in place – but that does not mean we are powerless! In fact, these very issues are exactly why the upcoming election matters.
We have an opportunity to hold our leaders accountable, elect representatives who better reflect our values, and influence the direction our state takes moving forward. And that brings us to the California ballot this November.
The ballot lineup has officially been finalized, and there are 14 propositions voters will be deciding on. Fourteen! That is a lot. I was expecting somewhere closer to eight or ten, so I was honestly surprised when I saw the final number. But here's the thing: we cannot allow the sheer number of issues before us to become overwhelming. It’s tempting to think, I can’t possibly research and understand 14 niche, confusing ballot propositions before November! Does it really matter anyway? But I am here to remind you that yes, it absolutely matters.
Instead of giving up before we get started, we should see this election as an opportunity – a chance to understand the decisions being put in front of us and thoughtfully consider what direction we want California to take. Maybe we can change course ahead of further decline! So, over the next several months, we're going to break down each proposition, look at what it actually does, and help you feel prepared to make an informed decision when you head to the polls.
Because when you look at all three stories from today – government inspecting your trash, restructuring an office voters have repeatedly chosen to preserve, and a bill that was supposed to protect public trust but ended up raising serious questions – you start to see the reality that decisions made by our leaders have real consequences for YOU.
Which means that we cannot just sit back and assume these decisions will fix themselves. California’s future is shaped by the people who show up – and this November, that starts with being informed. So, I will see you back here for the next several weeks to get prepared together! And to keep fighting for change in our state, for the better.
References:
[1] State of California. “California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy - CalRecycle Home Page.” CalRecycle, n.d. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/.
[2] Reyes-Velarde, Alejandra, and Alejandro Lazo. “Newsom Brings California to the Heart of the Amazon — and the U.N. Climate Conference.” CalMatters, November 12, 2025. https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2025/11/california-newsom-belem-climate-conference/.
[3] Stockreiter, Clemens. “California Is ‘Nowhere Near’ Emissions Goals. It’S Still Sending Organic Waste to Landfills.” CalMatters, February 25, 2026. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/02/organic-waste-california-emissions-landfills/.
[4] Hannibal, Cecil. “Sacramento Will Inspect Resident’s Waste Bins to Be in Compliance With State Law.” KCRA, July 14, 2026. https://www.kcra.com/article/sacramento-inspect-residents-waste-bins-compliance-with-state-law/71923623.
[5] California Department of Education. “Role & Responsibilities - Belief & Purpose,” n.d. https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/mn/rr/index.asp.
[6] Ayestas, Jonathan. “California 2026 Primary Election Results for Superintendent of Public Instruction.” KCRA, June 3, 2026. https://www.kcra.com/article/california-2026-primary-election-results-superintendent-of-public-instruction/71426839.
[7] Sanganeria, Vani. “Shaw Advances in Race for California Superintendent of Public Instruction.” Ed Source, June 3, 2026. https://edsource.org/updates/sonja-shaw-wins-primary-for-california-superintendent-of-public-instruction.
[8] Yu, Yue Stella. “Newsom’s Parting Gift: A Budget That Delays California’s Deep Cuts to 2027.” CalMatters, June 29, 2026. https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/06/california-gavin-newsom-final-budget-deal/.
[9] Fleischman, Jon. “Sacramento Reorganized the State Education Bureaucracy. Students, Parents Will Barely Notice.” So, Does It Matter? On CA Politics! (blog), July 14, 2026. https://www.sodoesitmatter.com/p/sacramento-reorganized-the-state?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=4841705&post_id=206648600&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=4q0fnp&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email.
[10] Yu, “Newsom’s Parting Gift: A Budget That Delays California’s Deep Cuts to 2027,” June 29, 2026.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Assemblymember Dawn Addis. “AB 2691 the Public Trust Protection Act,” n.d. https://addis.asmdc.org/ab-2691-public-trust-protection-act.
[13] Kuang, Jeanne. “Woman Alleges Violent Sexual Assault by Eric Swalwell: ‘He Raped Me’,” CalMatters, April 17, 2026, https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/04/eric-swalwell-sex-assault-allegation/.
[14] Piper, Jessica, and Adam Wren. “Exclusive: Woman Who Dated Graham Platner Says He Sexually Assaulted Her.” Politico, July 6, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/06/graham-platner-sexual-assault-allegation-00987737.
[15] Assemblymember Dawn Addis. “Addis Bill Barring Sex Offenders From Public Office Clears Assembly,” April 28, 2026. https://addis.asmdc.org/press-releases/20260428-addis-bill-barring-sex-offenders-public-office-clears-assembly.
[16] Burt, Greg. “Addis’s Bill Should Protect All Victims, Including the Most Vulnerable.” Cal Coast News, July 8, 2026. https://calcoastnews.com/2026/07/addis-bill-should-protect-all-victims-including-the-most-vulnerable/.
[17] California Family Council. “CA Bill Meant to Bar Sex Offenders From Office Now Exempts Crimes Against Young Teens,” July 2, 2026. https://www.californiafamily.org/2026/07/ca-bill-meant-to-bar-sex-offenders-from-office-now-exempts-crimes-against-children/.
[18] Ibid.
[19] LegiScan. “California Assembly Bill 2691,” June 24, 2026. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2691/2025.
[20] “CA Bill Meant to Bar Sex Offenders From Office Now Exempts Crimes Against Young Teens.”
