Sheinbaum refuses judge’s order to withdraw judicial reform

October 25, 2024

latinbriefs_judicial reform_10.25.24 — Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum

by the El Reportero‘s wire services

President Claudia Sheinbaum said Friday that she won’t comply with a judge’s order to withdraw the publication of a decree that promulgated the government’s controversial judicial reform.

Nancy Juárez Salas, a federal district judge based in Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, ordered Sheinbaum and the director of the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF) to remove the decree published on Sept. 15, ruling that the government breached a provisional suspension order against publication.

Former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador promulgated the judicial reform despite a court in Colima ruling against its publication in the government’s gazette.

In her ruling on Thursday, Juárez ordered Sheinbaum and DOF Director Alejandro López González to eliminate the published decree within 24 hours.

She warned that the failure to do so is punishable in accordance with a law that stipulates that a public official who fails to comply with an injunction can be sentenced to a prison term of up to nine years as well as fined and removed from office.

However, the Reforma newspaper reported that the Federal Attorney General’s Office didn’t proceed against officials who defied court orders during the presidency of López Obrador.

At her morning press conference on Friday, Sheinbaum said that the judge in Coatzacoalcos doesn’t have the authority to order the removal of the decree from the DOF.

She offered three reasons in support of her assertion:

“A judge is not above the people.”
“What she’s doing doesn’t have any legal basis.”
Mexico’s Congress — which approved the judicial reform in September — “ordered the then President Andrés Manuel López Obrador” to publish the decree.

“So we’re not going to take the publication down,” Sheinbaum said.

The judicial reform — the most controversial aspect of which is the provision allowing citizens to elect all judges in Mexico, including Supreme Court justices — will not be stopped by anyone, the president said.

“Not a male judge nor a female judge, nor eight Supreme Court justices can stop the will of the people of Mexico,” said Sheinbaum, who made it known before she was elected in June that she supported all of the constitutional reform proposals that López Obrador submitted to Congress in February.

The president also said that the government would file a complaint against Juárez with the Federal Judiciary Council (CJF).

Rulings against constitutional reforms are invalid, says president’s legal advisor

Ernestina Godoy, legal counsel to the president, told Sheinbaum’s press conference that constitutional reforms that have been approved by Mexico’s Congress are “exempt” from judicial revision.

She highlighted that the Supreme Court, “in multiple opinions and rulings,” has “rejected” the notion that a constitutional reform can be reviewed in court.

“It’s extremely clear,” said Godoy, who served as attorney general of Mexico City while Sheinbaum was mayor of the capital.

Arturo Zaldívar, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court who is now an official in the Sheinbaum administration, also said that judges don’t have the authority to hand down rulings against constitutional reforms.

Godoy said that the CJF needs to review the conduct of district judges who are “defying the constitution” by handing down rulings against constitutional reforms.

Many of those judges could soon be without a job as the federal government intends to hold a first round of judicial elections in 2025.

Critics of the reform argue that judges sympathetic to the ruling Morena party’s legislative agenda could come to dominate the nation’s courts, effectively removing an important check on government power.

With reports from Animal Político, Reforma, El Financiero and Milenio

San Francisco’s housing policy: Perpetuating poverty instead of eradicating it

October 25, 2024

editorial below market housing_10.25.24 — Construcción de viviendas a precios inferiores al mercado en el área de Hunter's Point en SF. -- Construction of below-market-rate housing in the Hunter's Point area of SF. Photo Marvin Ramírez

In cities like San Francisco, developers are increasingly required to include below-market-rate (BMR) units in their construction projects as a condition for securing permits. These BMR units are offered at reduced rents, allowing lower-income residents to remain in the city despite its notoriously high housing costs. On the surface, this policy seems like a win-win for both the city and its residents. The city addresses its housing crisis while giving residents access to affordable housing in an otherwise unaffordable market. However, this policy comes with hidden drawbacks, perpetuating poverty and limiting the financial mobility of those who live in these units.

One major problem with this arrangement is the income cap imposed on tenants of BMR units. Residents must meet certain income requirements, typically earning no more than a specific threshold, to qualify for the reduced rent. While this ensures that the apartments go to those in need, it also creates an unintended consequence: a perpetual dependence on renting. Residents of BMR units are financially locked into a situation where they must stay under a certain income level to retain access to affordable housing, effectively preventing them from accumulating wealth or advancing economically.

This dynamic keeps BMR tenants as permanent renters, unable to own property. The path to homeownership, which is one of the most reliable ways to build wealth and secure long-term financial stability, is closed to them. Without the opportunity to own, these tenants are not just deprived of the chance to build equity but are also unable to pass on wealth to their descendants. As a result, generations of families remain stuck in a cycle of renting, never able to leverage property ownership as a tool for financial advancement.

The very structure of this policy seems counterproductive to the larger goal of reducing poverty and fostering economic independence. By focusing solely on keeping rents low and not addressing the broader need for wealth-building opportunities, San Francisco and other cities are perpetuating a system where low-income families are dependent on government-regulated housing indefinitely. Rather than empowering individuals to improve their financial situation, these policies trap them in a state of constant financial fragility.

It doesn’t have to be this way. In a previous editorial, I suggested a simple but transformative solution: allow tenants of BMR units to eventually purchase the properties they rent. By offering tenants the chance to own their apartments or condos, the city can enable these families to create wealth and achieve long-term financial independence. Ownership would empower these families to invest in their future, build equity, and break the cycle of poverty.

Imagine a scenario where, instead of capping a tenant’s income to maintain affordable rent, the city incentivizes long-term tenants to become homeowners. Over time, tenants could buy their units at a price aligned with their income and the market conditions. This could be done through a combination of city subsidies, favorable financing options, and shared-equity models, where the city retains partial ownership of the property to keep it affordable while still allowing the resident to build wealth.

Such a policy would fundamentally change the economic outlook for thousands of families. It would give them the financial security that comes with owning a home, the ability to pass down property to future generations, and a way to escape the never-ending cycle of rent dependency. This would be an investment not just in housing, but in the long-term economic vitality of the city and its residents.

The financial benefits of homeownership extend far beyond the individual. When families own property, they have a greater stake in their community, contributing to neighborhood stability and fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility. Homeowners are also more likely to invest in their properties, improving the overall quality and value of housing stock in the city. Furthermore, property ownership helps diversify the city’s economic base, reducing reliance on government subsidies and fostering a more resilient local economy.

Yet, despite the clear advantages of such a shift, none of the current candidates for mayor or city supervisor in the upcoming November 5, 2024, election are proposing this kind of policy. Their platforms continue to focus on traditional affordable housing models that prioritize rent control and income caps without addressing the long-term economic impacts of keeping families dependent on renting. This oversight is disqualifying, in my opinion. San Francisco needs leaders who understand that real solutions to poverty go beyond temporary rent relief. We need policies that empower people to build wealth, not just scrape by month to month.

If San Francisco’s leadership is serious about reducing poverty and fostering economic equity, they need to think beyond rent control. They must embrace policies that allow families to own property, build wealth, and secure their financial futures. The current model of BMR housing may provide short-term relief, but it is a band-aid solution to a much deeper problem. By restricting renters’ income and limiting their ability to own property, we are perpetuating a system that keeps low-income residents in a cycle of poverty, unable to break free from the financial constraints imposed on them.

Ultimately, the solution to San Francisco’s housing crisis isn’t just more affordable rental units; it’s creating pathways to ownership. By allowing tenants of BMR units to transition from renters to owners, the city can empower these families to take control of their financial futures and build lasting wealth. This is the only way to truly eradicate poverty and end dependency on government subsidies. It’s time for a bold new approach to housing policy—one that prioritizes economic empowerment and financial independence over temporary fixes.

As voters head to the polls this November, they should demand more from their candidates. We need leaders who are willing to think beyond the status quo and propose policies that will create real, lasting change. Housing policy should be about more than just keeping people in their homes; it should be about helping them own their homes and secure their financial futures. Anything less is a disservice to the very people these policies are meant to help.

Colorado mother’s story shows why abortion pill reversal must be allowed nationwide

October 25, 2024

Colorado has no right to prevent healthcare professionals from doing their most important job: saving lives. Expectant mothers who regret taking the abortion pill deserve the chance to try to save their children

by Grant Atkinson

In August 2023, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said during an interview with CNN that he and his fellow Democratic politicians believe that abortion is “bad, [and] it should be minimized.” It was a modern twist on the classic “safe, legal, and rare” line coined by President Bill Clinton decades earlier.

The problem for Gov. Polis is that actions speak louder than words. Just months before this CNN interview, he signed a law banning medical professionals from offering or providing abortion pill reversal. And if the law stands as written, it will bar Colorado women like Mackenna from seeking a potential alternative to abortion.

Mackenna regretted taking an abortion drug

When Mackenna found out she was pregnant in December 2023, she began to panic. She had faced complications during the birth of her first child, and she had concerns about how a second child would affect her financial and housing situation.

At just five weeks pregnant, she decided to have an abortion. She searched “abortion pill” on the internet and found a website that shipped the drugs directly to her. Thanks to the FDA’s reckless removal of safeguards for these drugs, she wasn’t even required to visit a doctor in person before taking mifepristone, a drug meant to end her child’s life.

After taking the drug, Mackenna immediately regretted her decision. When she began conducting research on whether she could reverse the drug’s effect, she learned about abortion pill reversal (APR).

Abortion pill reversal saved Mackenna’s baby

In the United States, women seeking chemical abortions are commonly prescribed two abortion drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, with one taken after the other. Mifepristone is taken first and is meant to kill the unborn child by blocking progesterone, a naturally occurring hormone needed to sustain pregnancy.

Many women experience the same regret Mackenna experienced after taking mifepristone. There is a window of time between the first and second abortion drugs during which the effects of mifepristone may be reversed and the baby may be saved. APR is the process of trying to save these unborn children.

In the APR process, medical professionals prescribe women progesterone to “outnumber and outcompete” mifepristone’s effects, as Charlotte Lozier Institute describes it. While APR is not guaranteed to save unborn children, research shows it has a 64-68 percent success rate, and statistics indicate it has likely saved over 5,000 unborn children.

In her research, Mackenna found the Abortion Pill Rescue Network. The network connected her to Chelsea Mynyk, a nurse practitioner and certified nurse midwife who runs her own clinic in Castle Rock, Colorado.

Mackenna quickly scheduled an appointment with Chelsea, who she says immediately put her at ease. Chelsea examined Mackenna, explained the APR process, and even printed out an ultrasound with the word “HOPE” written on it.

Chelsea prescribed progesterone for Mackenna and continued seeing her weekly until she was 13 weeks pregnant. She also provided prenatal care for Mackenna until she was 20 weeks pregnant. And in the summer of 2024, Mackenna gave birth to a healthy daughter.

Without APR, this birth would never have been possible. Unfortunately, someone tried to use Mackenna’s inspiring story to punish Chelsea.

Colorado should allow women the choice of APR

In January 2024, an individual found out that Chelsea was providing APR for Mackenna and filed a complaint against Chelsea and her clinic. Mackenna never authorized or suggested the complaint, and the individual had no personal knowledge of Mackenna’s story.

Nonetheless, the Colorado Board of Nursing opened an investigation into Chelsea under Colorado’s law banning abortion pill reversal. So Alliance Defending Freedom joined a lawsuit on Chelsea’s behalf challenging the unconstitutional law.

READ: Satanic Temple opens Virginia center for ‘religious abortion’ rituals

Mackenna considers herself one of the lucky ones because she was able to seek Chelsea’s help to save her baby’s life. She wants other women to have that opportunity too. But if Colorado has its way, Chelsea will be barred from providing this potentially life-saving care.

Progesterone is commonly used to effectively prevent miscarriage and forestall pre-term labor. An appropriate prescription does not put women or their unborn children in danger. But Colorado hasn’t outlawed progesterone. It has only made it illegal to use this treatment for one group of people: women who have changed their minds about having an abortion.

Colorado has no right to prevent healthcare professionals from doing their most important job: saving lives. Expectant mothers who regret taking mifepristone deserve the chance to try to save their children, and healthcare professionals like Chelsea must be allowed to provide that opportunity.

Reprinted with permission from the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Against access threats, ensuring votes count this November

October 25, 2024

With the presidential elections just three weeks away, voters and election officials nationwide are facing historically high threats to voting access. These threats include new state voting restrictions, misinformation, voter roll purges and political violence

by Selen Ozturk

Political violence

“You’d have to go back to the 1960s and 70s to see anything like the hotbed of political violence we’re in now,” said Dr. Robert Pape, political science professor at the University of Chicago, at a Friday, October 18 Ethnic Media Services briefing about voting access threats.

As director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST), Pape and his colleagues found that since 2001, the average number of Department of Justice-prosecuted threats increased five-fold to 19.5 under President Trump, and even higher to 21.6 under President Biden.

“Most of this violence revolves around support or criticism of Donald Trump, and mass support and publicity is nudging volatile would-be attackers to act out,” he explained. “Much of it is also motivated by the ‘Great Replacement’ theory that the country’s white population is being replaced by other ethnic groups.”

Recent political violence includes assassination plots and attempts against major political figures like Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in May 2022, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in October 2022, President Joe Biden in June 2023, former President Barack Obama in September 2023 and former President Trump in July and September 2024.

Alongside these are politically motivated mass shootings like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in September 2018; the El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting in August 2019; and the Buffalo, New York supermarket shooting in May 2022.

A September 2024 CPOST survey of over 2,200 demographically representative Americans found 5.8 percent saying political violence was justified to restore Trump to the presidency and 8 percent saying it was justified to prevent him from being president — amounting to 15 million and 21 million Americans on the national scale, respectively.

“If Trump loses, the violence could actually get worse,” said Pape. “A third of respondents already own guns … While Election Day itself is a danger point, it may get worse afterward because of state vote counting and certification schedules, especially in swing states where losing even 3 percent of ballots could throw the outcome into chaos.”

However, the CPOST survey also found that 84 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans — collectively amounting to 200 million Americans on the national scale — supported a bipartisan Congressional coalition against political violence.

“The political violence prevention strategy we’ve been seeing the most traction with is not to have our political leadership become therapists getting people to talk out their anger, but helping people redirect their anger away from violence and toward voting,” added Pape.

Voter suppression

“Voter suppression doesn’t involve states putting up giant signs that say you can’t vote. It involves less overt ways to make it just a little too hard for some people to get to the ballot box, like a death by 1,000 cuts,” said Andrew Garber, a voting rights and elections counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice.

These measures include laws that shorten deadlines for voter registration, early voting and mail ballot requests; laws that make it harder for organizations to help people register to vote; understaffing or closing polling centers; and limiting the ability of local election administrators to help voters use ballots.

Between 2020 and 2024, at least 30 states have passed an unprecedented 78 restrictive voting laws — nearly double the laws passed in the prior eight years.

The years between 2016 to 2020 saw 27 such laws, while 2013 to 2016 saw 17.

The most common type of voting restriction law in recent years involves mail voting.

“2020 saw an explosion of people voting by mail due to the pandemic, and these restrictions have particularly fallen on communities of color,” Garber explained. “In Georgia, for instance, previously, primarily white voters voted by mail. In 2020, that flipped toward voters of color … In January 2021, the Georgia legislature reconvened and, as one of its top priorities, passed a law that made it harder to vote by mail.”

“To justify these restrictions, the claim legislators make over and over is that our elections have widespread fraud — and that’s untrue,” he added.

A 2016 Brennan Center survey of 44 election administrators overseeing 23.5 million votes across 42 states saw 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting, or .0001 percent of all votes.

“The U.S. has some of the most secure elections in the world. It’s not the actual infrastructure apparatus. It’s more about people’s ability to access it,” said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters (LWV).

Ensuring voter access

What can voters do?

“First and foremost, register to vote,” continued Stewart. “With voter roll purges, it’s important to update and check your registration, especially if you move or change your name … To get around potential long wait times on Election Day, learn about early and mail in-voting opportunities in your state.”

Local polling locations, voter registration, mail-in and early voting resources, candidate information, campaign finance information and ballot guides are available in English and Spanish through the LWV hub VOTE411.

LWV chapters also hold question-and-answer forums with local candidates in jurisdictions nationwide.

“Nothing is better than being able to hear directly from a candidate answering your questions about the issues you care about,” said Stewart. “When we vote for our leaders, we’re choosing the people who will make decisions that impact how we engage in the world day-to-day, whether that’s health care, jobs or climate change — like the impact of the recent hurricane in the South.”

Fighting voter restrictions in Arizona

“Arizona has the most extreme requirements in the country for providing proof of citizenship when registering to vote in state and local elections,” said May Tiwamangkala, advocacy director at Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity (AZ AANHPI), the only AAPI civic engagement organization in the state.

“They passed this requirement back in 2004. This year, the fact that registrants who registered before 2004 did not provide citizenship led to 98,000 people being taken off the voter roll,” she continued.

Of these people, one was found to be a non-citizen — 0.00001 percent of the 98,000 — and they had never voted.

“The ‘non-citizens voting’ rhetoric is a scare tactic that certain elected officials and media outlets use to divide our state … and this election year, the rampant anti-immigrant narrative is making it easier for lawmakers to pass laws that target immigrant communities,” said Tiwamangkala.

AZ AANHPI is currently involved in a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for two voter restriction laws passed in 2022, HB 2492 and HB 2242.

One law “adds more requirements for providing proof of citizenship in order to register to vote,” she explained, and the other “gives county recorders the right to suspect voters of being a non-citizen and purge voter rolls … If additional proof of citizenship is not provided within 35 days after a notice to give documentation, it may also lead to criminal investigations.”

“We’re an extremely polarized culture, especially since we’re a border state, and people are hesitant to get political because they don’t want to break personal relationships. Voter apathy is growing here because people are struggling with inflating living costs, and they feel that the government isn’t helping,” Tiwamangkala said.

“We’re constantly on the defense against harmful bills like these that impact citizens, rather than advancing bills that actually address the issues we face,” she added.

California crime measure Prop. 36 could increase deportations

October 25, 2024

Frontpg_Prop36_10.25.24 — Los detenidos hablan por teléfono en el Centro de Procesamiento de ICE de Adelanto, en Adelanto, el 28 de agosto de 2019. Detainees talk on telephones at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in Adelanto on Aug. 28, 2019.

Ballot initiative would turn certain thefts and drug crimes into felonies, potentially helping expel some immigrants

by Wendy Fry

A tough-on-crime ballot measure that appears destined to pass could lead to more Californians being deported, immigrant advocates warn.

Proposition 36 would reclassify certain misdemeanor drug and theft offenses as felonies, which means immigrants convicted of those crimes are more likely to face deportation if they have a case before an immigration court, the advocates said.

“It is not an understatement to say that if Prop. 36 passes, more Californians, including green-card holders, including refugees, will be deported,” said Grisel Ruíz, a supervising attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. “The impacts will be pretty disastrous.”

In California, where almost half of all children have at least one parent who is an immigrant, advocates are worried the measure could have ripple effects for families and communities. The initiative on the Nov. 5 ballot would allow prosecutors to impose stricter and longer sentences by using prior convictions as sentence enhancements.

Under this new system, a simple drug possession charge with prior convictions could be considered an “aggravated felony” conviction in immigration court, which triggers the most severe penalties possible. In almost all cases, a person in immigration court with an “aggravated felony” on their record faces mandated deportation for life and loses all chances of immigration relief, Ruíz said.

Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, a Prop. 36 supporter, said the measure does not enhance the risks for immigrants any more than a retail and property crime package of bills the Legislature recently passed and the governor signed.

“The immigration argument to me is just a red herring because DAs already have a proven track record of working to mitigate unreasonable immigration consequences,” Reisig said.

The package of retail crime bills turns certain thefts into felonies but does not address drug offenses.

In general, supporters of Prop. 36 have described as overblown concerns that the measure would inflict devastating consequences for minor offenses. The measure mainly targets adult repeat offenders, they say. The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts the initiative would increase California’s prison population of 90,000 inmates by a few thousand.

Immigration courts may consider “dismissed” felonies

The goal of Prop. 36’s harsher sentences is to reduce drug-related crimes by steering repeat offenders toward treatment rather than prison; after finishing treatment, defendants can have their charges dismissed.

But federal immigration courts do not typically recognize dismissals that follow the successful completion of such diversion programs, Ruíz said.

Reisig disputed this, saying treatment means a “conviction is completely expunged” and that there is “zero risk of an immigration consequence.”

Devin Chatterton, the directing attorney at Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said people are often confused and unaware that any post-conviction relief received in state criminal court is not recognized in immigration court.

“Even if the criminal judge exercises some lenience or exercises some discretion, that discretion is not carried into the immigration proceedings,” she said. “That is all well and good for criminal court. But the immigration courts do not recognize a whole host of rehabilitative and relief-based things such as dismissal in state court.”

Chatterton said the results have devastating impacts on people, families and the community: “This is a way families become separated. People lose their parents. People lose their brothers or sisters, their moms, their dads. It’s really heartbreaking.”

Some immigrants told CalMatters they are concerned about the ramifications of Prop. 36.

“It’s scary,” said Jessica Sánchez, 29, whose mother brought her to the United States without federal authorization when she was a baby. Her family was fleeing violence-stricken Michocán, Mexico. Sánchez has been incarcerated in the past. She now works at Homeboy Industries, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit focused on gang rehabilitation and re-entry.

Though she wouldn’t be facing deportation for past convictions under Prop. 36, Sánchez said it’s troubling to see the progress California has made protecting immigrant communities potentially undone.

“To see that in one vote, in one year, everything can get taken back ten years — it’s scary because how long it took us to get here,” she said. “It’s scary because people lose hope.”

Strong support from voters

Officially titled the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, Prop. 36 has strong voter support despite opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, polls indicate.

Earlier this month, UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies found that 60 percent of likely voters support Prop. 36, with most backers citing as their reason the measure’s harsher punishments for repeat offenders. A new poll by the Bay Area News Group and Joint Venture Silicon Valley of more than 1,650 registered voters in the traditionally left-leaning Bay Area found 70 percent of respondents supported Proposition 36 while 20 percent were opposed.

Also supporting the measure are the Democratic mayors of San Francisco, San Jose, and San Diego. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated it could cost the state ”several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually” plus tens of millions of dollars at the local level.

Supporters of Prop. 36 say the measure will rectify some of the shortcomings of an earlier ballot initiative, Proposition 47. Approved by voters ten years ago, Prop. 47 sought to reduce California’s severe prison overcrowding by reclassifying as misdemeanors six felony theft and drug crimes, including shoplifting and simple drug possession. It funneled the resulting cost savings into drug and mental health treatment and services for victims of crime and at-risk students. Since then, participation fell sharply in California’s optional drug courts, which offer treatment as an alternative to a conviction. Meanwhile, prosecutors, police, and big box retailers like Walmart and Target blamed the law for an increase in property crimes and homelessness.

But Prop. 36 can produce life-altering consequences for anyone who is not a U.S. citizen, including long-time permanent residents, green card holders and DACA recipients, even over normally minor crimes.

Currently in California, theft of items worth $950 or less is generally a misdemeanor. Prop. 36 would make this crime a felony for people who have two or more past convictions for certain related crimes like shoplifting, burglary, or carjacking. The sentence, beyond any fallout in immigration court, would be up to three years in county jail or state prison.

In California, where one in every four people is foreign-born, immigrants face far greater rates of poverty and lack full access to social programs. The poverty rate for foreign-born Californians was 17.6 percent, compared to 11.5 percent for U.S.-born residents; poverty among undocumented immigrants was 29.6 percent. Additionally, 41 percent of undocumented children and young adults between the ages of 0 and 26 in California are living in poverty, according to Nourish California, an organization that fights hunger.

Sánchez said the state should address that poverty rather than trying to crack down on the issue through the criminal justice system.

“I’m not saying stealing is the right way to do things, but what would you do if you were hungry? “ Sánchez said. “Or if you had children at home who were hungry?” CalMatters.

10 Actions to Take Charge of Your Personal Finances

October 25, 2024

Sponsored by JPMorganChase

With the holiday season around the corner, now is an opportune time to take stock of your personal finances and get ahead of your New Year’s resolutions for 2025. No matter what turn the economy, elections and markets take, there are actions you can take to help optimize your personal finances.

Here are ten actions to help you take charge of your personal finances, assessing your current standing and taking the right steps toward setting yourself up for success in 2025.

Create a Wealth Plan: Develop a comprehensive wealth plan to ensure your personal and financial goals are well-aligned with your available resources. Tools like J.P. Morgan’s propriety planning tool, Wealth Plan, can help clearly see your risk exposure and cash flows to achieve your goals.

Hold the Right Amount of Cash: With expected interest rate cuts, ensure you have the right amount of cash on hand, and consider yield opportunities that match your time horizon and liquidity needs.
Maximize Investment Opportunities: Volatility may resurface during election season. Stay invested for your long-term goals and evaluate opportunities to invest excess cash.
Complete the annual “to-dos”: This includes funding retirement accounts, such as IRAs and 401(k)s, taking RMDs, and making annual exclusion gifts to take advantage of tax benefits.
Review your life insurance policies: Ensure your life insurance coverage is adequate to protect your loved ones. Update beneficiaries and consider whether additional coverage is needed.
Increase your portfolio’s tax efficiency: Implement strategies to minimize taxes on your investments, such as tax-loss harvesting and utilizing tax-advantaged accounts.
Review Your Asset Ownership Designations: Ensure your assets are properly titled to reflect your current wishes and potentially provide tax benefits.
Plan your charitable giving: Develop a charitable giving strategy that aligns with your values and maximizes tax benefits. Consider donor-advised funds or charitable trusts.
Host a Family Meeting: Discuss money and family values with your family members. Align on values, disclose age-appropriate information, and build financial literacy skills.
Be Cybersafe in a Changing World: Enhance your cybersecurity measures to protect against scams and deepfakes. Verify contacts, use safe words, and be cautious with links and attachments.
By taking these steps, you can better navigate the uncertainties of the economy and markets, and set yourself up for financial success in 2025. For more personalized advice, consider consulting with a financial advisor who can help tailor these actions to your specific situation.

For informational/educational purposes only: Views and strategies described may not be appropriate for everyone and are not intended as specific advice/recommendation for any individual. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but JPMorgan Chase & Co. or its affiliates and/or subsidiaries do not warrant its completeness or accuracy.

Deposit products provided JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC. Equal Opportunity Lender.

Duck, Cover, and Hold On: Actions to keep Californians safe in the event of an earthquake

October 23, 2024

Great Shake Out, the program that helps prevent and spread the actions that Californians should take to save their lives in the event of an earthquake

by Xochitl TC

Sonya Harris, senior advisor for Listos California, began her participation by thanking the collaboration of all the teams present at the press conference, recognizing the great work of dissemination that they do from their field of action to prevent a catastrophe in the event of an earthquake in California.

For her part, the communications director of CalOES, Amy Palmer, began her participation by recognizing the great work of her predecessor, Bryan Ferguson, who tirelessly supported the construction of an emergency communications platform and mentioned that “we need to spread the right message in the right places” to continue with the same scheme to save lives in the event of any disaster.

Although there is extensive information about fires, hurricanes and heat waves, Palmer said, “We do not want earthquakes to be forgotten,” and added, “we will put them to an important test next week with a drill,” and one of the main objectives is to ensure that the population has the correct information in time.

35 years after the Loma Prieta earthquake

Although “earthquakes continue to be unpredictable, beyond scientific advances and any scientist,” he said that there is a 60 percent probability that there will be an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.7 on the Richter scale in Los Angeles and a 72 percent probability that one of the same magnitude will occur in the Bay Area in San Francisco.

On October 17, 1989, an earthquake of magnitude 6.9 on the Richter scale shook Loma Prieta, located 56 miles from San Francisco, an event that left 63 dead and more than 3,500 injured. 35 years later, a drill will be held on October 17 at 10:17 in the morning where the 7 steps to follow in case an earthquake of that intensity occurs again will be communicated.

Remembering Loma Prieta, there are 7 steps for safety in the event of an earthquake of that intensity

Loma Prieta left great lessons for Educate the population about prevention and for that reason, they shared an emergency plan that can save the lives of the population, which consists of 3 stages: preparation, survival and recovery.

In the preparation stage, they recommend that the population locate a safe space, get to safety and organize emergency objects such as important documents (personal and property insurance). The second stage gave the title to the press conference “drop, cover and hold on”, urging society that it is important to get to a safe place, cover themselves, wait and preserve life by evacuating a space that puts their integrity at risk and also, helping those who are injured.

“We have had several earthquakes this year in California where our state sensor system is giving people seconds of advantage before an earthquake begins,” said Palmer, highlighting that it is a new measure that helps the population have time to react at the time of an earthquake, since the alarm sounds on the cell phone 20 seconds before an earthquake begins.

Join us in the world’s largest earthquake drill

Great California Shakeout Tour, is a program that aims to provide preparedness information for the population and is a statewide tour because they seek to bring the message to all regions of the state.

“We are going to have an earthquake simulator to provide a real experience to raise awareness among the population about why they need to adopt preventive measures,” said José Lara, head of the seismic hazards department of the emergency services of the Governor’s office.

The tours will begin at the University of San Diego, then in Los Angeles and later in Sacramento, “we seek to emphasize that they must experience the real movement of the earthquake to understand the importance of how we should act, by dropping to the ground, covering themselves and waiting.”

José Lara also highlighted that they want young people to experience and help spread the message of preparation and for that reason, they will take the drill to the University of California at the San Diego and Sacramento campuses.

Take action in the event of an earthquake from shakeout.org

On the shakeout.org site you can join to participate and although there are more than 9 thousand people who have already joined to practice this drill, they seek to reach more than 9 million people to transmit the message of “drop, cover and hold on.”

“I came here when I was 7 years old and my region of Mexico does not have this advanced technology that helps save lives,” “I know that I have personal experience in this, I have trained my family with this and many in Mexico do the opposite of that, so the best thing we can do in California is to get on the ground, cover ourselves and hold on.”

My shake app

Since 2019, it has become easier to send alerts to millions of Californians, as around 425 thousand people have been notified 20 seconds before an earthquake starts. It is important that people check their cell phones and turn on their wireless alerts so that they can receive all types of warnings.

How can you join?

You can join the conversation through your social networks this October 17, creating a message alluding to the drill; also, you can create a mini simulation and download all the activities that involve the Shakeout California campaign.

Go to ShakeOut.org and you can join all the actions for the month of October for free. Participants invite the general population to help spread the message of prevention and save lives in the event of an earthquake.

The Santa Barbara Museum of Art presents two exhibitions exploring identity, culture and expression

October 23, 2024

The Santa Barbara Museum of Art (SBMA) is pleased to announce the opening of two special exhibitions, Amigos y Amantes (through March 2, 2025) and Acreción: Works by Latin American Women (through April 13, 2025). Both exhibitions delve into themes of identity, resilience, and cultural expression with the diverse work of contemporary artists, offering the public an immersion into notions of friendship, family, immigration, and self-discovery.

These two exhibitions, as well as a public opening event hosted in conjunction with Santa Barbara’s Pacific Pride Foundation, evidence SBMA’s commitment to equity and community engagement. The Museum is also pleased to offer wall signage and name tags in both English and Spanish for works from both exhibitions on view in the galleries, as part of its continued attention to accessibility and inclusion.

Friends and Lovers

The exhibition Friends and Lovers, on view in the Museum’s Loeb Gallery, explores how LGBTQ+ individuals have forged bonds of friendship and created alternative families by seeking solidarity in their own community amid societal pressures.

Drawing on works from SBMA’s collection and loaned pieces, this exhibition features a wide variety of artistic media that capture the intimacy, challenges, and triumphs of the LGBTQ+ experience. The exhibition includes a variety of media and approaches including film, painting, sculpture, collage, and photography.

A centerpiece of this exhibition is Still Life with Triumeq® and Candies Reminding Me of Felix Gonzalez-Torres (2023) (above) by Joey Terrill. The artist incorporates symbols of his Chicana heritage and activism to defend the rights of HIV+ patients in this still life, such as the sarape – an allusion to his roots as a Mexican immigrant – and Triumeq – an expensive drug to treat HIV that is too often made prohibitive by its exorbitant price. The candies stuck to the surface of the painting reference a work by Félix González-Torres in which a pile of wrapped candies evoke his late partner, Ross Laycock, who like him died of complications from AIDS in the 1990s.

Another painter exhibiting here is Pui Tiffany Chow (周佩璇), who challenges classical representations of women with her work Is She Inside? Is She Outside? (2020). The artist recently said: “This painting is a feminist and queer reinterpretation of the Western canon of female nudes.” Chow uses the female nudes of European male artists, such as Jacopo Pontormo, Antonio Canova, and Jean Honoré Fragonard, and turns them on their head by reinterpreting them from the perspective of women looking at and desiring other women. Chow, a Hong Kong immigrant now based in Los Angeles, incorporates elements of Chinese painting to highlight negative space as active and important.

Friends and Lovers

September 22, 2024 – March 2, 2025

Accretion: Works by Latin American Women

September 29, 2024 – April 13, 2025

Left: Pui Tiffany Chow, Is It In? Is It Out?, 2020. Acrylic, charcoal, flash paint, oil, spray paint, and faux suede flocking on canvas. Courtesy of the artist. Right: Edie Fake, Persuasion, 2024. Acrylic and gouache on wood panel. SBMA, Museum acquisition funded by the General Acquisitions Fund.

San Francisco’s housing policy: Perpetuating poverty instead of eradicating it

October 23, 2024