PolitiFact California

By Randol White The overwhelming evidence, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shows the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, both for adults and children 12 and up. Also, the FDA is expected to authorize a COVID-19 vaccine for younger children in the coming weeks. But false claims are circulating on social media saying the COVID-19 vaccines are harmful to children and caused the death of a Sonoma County teenager.   CapRadio's PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols fact-checked those claims in this week's Can You Handle the Truth segment. He spoke with anchor Randol White. Interview Highlights There are false claims spreading on social media saying the vaccines are harmful. You found one high-profile example. Tell us about that.  A story went viral on Twitter and Facebook after the tragic death of a 15-year-old boy in Sonoma County this summer.  He had received the second dose of his vaccine within 48 hours of his death, and some anti-vaccination groups used that information to make the false claim that the vaccine caused his death.  I contacted Sonoma County spokesperson Paul Gullixson about this. Here's what he told me:   “The case was thoroughly investigated by the Sonoma County coroner's office in partnership with the California Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," Gullixson said. "Forensic experts from all those agencies have concluded that there was no evidence the vaccine caused the death.” So, there's no evidence the vaccine caused the death. Were the experts able to determine what did cause his death? They concluded he died of what is called stress cardiomyopathy, or heart failure with coronary artery inflammation.  The CDC says there have been rare cases where young people developed heart inflammation after receiving the Covid 19 vaccines, correct? That is correct. And the agency says people should seek medical care if they have symptoms such as chest pain or shortness of breath or feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart. They say most patients respond well to medicine and rest, and feel better quickly.  But again the experts who looked at this Sonoma County case said they could not find a link to the vaccine. They described this as a perplexing case: the boy did not have a history of heart problems.  Here is Gullixson:  “We had cardio forensic pathologists, we had pediatric cardiologists looking at this case and they all agree it's a very rare and tragic and complicated case. But they could find no direct link between the death and the vaccines," Gullixson said. In response to the posts circulating on social media, the family of the boy who died provided a message to the public. What did they say?  They did. They told the Press Democrat newspaper in Santa Rosa, that “We feel strongly that everyone should have their children vaccinated.” They went on to say:  “We believe vaccines are safe and effective. Families should recognize that complicating factors can occur with any vaccine and, because of that, we encourage parents to closely monitor their children ... following vaccination regardless if they have symptoms or not.”

By Sasha Hupka If Your Time Is Short: In recent weeks, several California school districts have announced that students over the age of 12 will be required to receive the COVID-19 vaccine to attend school in person. Some districts, such as the Los Angeles Unified School District, will only accept medical exemptions to the shot, while others, like the Oakland Unified School District, will also offer personal belief exemptions. California for decades has required schoolchildren receive vaccines for a range of diseases from measles to mumps to chickenpox, but experts say it's unclear whether districts can individually mandate vaccines under current state law.  California law allows the state Legislature and the department of public health to set vaccination requirements for schoolchildren but does not include a process for local school boards. Legal scholars expect that the mandates will be challenged in court. When the Culver City Unified School District announced in August it would require all eligible students to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the announcement was met with overwhelming support from the surrounding Los Angeles County community. But as other schools across California have announced similar mandates in recent weeks, questions have emerged about whether individual districts can legally require public schoolchildren to receive COVID-19 shots, spurring opposition. The Los Angeles Unified School District saw protesters when its board voted to mandate COVID-19 shots for students over 12 years of age on Sept. 9. The vote led to claims online that the district did not have the legal authority to require vaccinations. Last week, a crowd of parents holding signs with slogans like “My child, my choice” gathered outside a high school in Glendale, even though the school currently has no COVID-19 vaccination mandate in place for pupils. Experts say previous legal rulings indicate that schools can generally mandate vaccinations for students and employees. But in California, where the state Legislature has already passed laws on student vaccination mandates, it's unclear how much latitude districts might have to require schoolchildren to get the shot. Legal scholars expect that the courts will have to work out the details. In the meantime, here's what we know. Constitutional Challenges Leslie Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and director of the Capital Center for Law & Policy, said legal scholars “always” expect to see constitutional challenges to vaccine mandates. But in the case of school vaccination mandates, she said those challenges “should not be strong” and are unlikely to succeed in court given past rulings. “Religious liberty shouldn't be a winner constitutionally and bodily integrity — ‘I can't have a shot in my body' — should also not be a winner constitutionally,” Jacobs said. Government entities like schools and the U.S. Army have historically been able to require vaccinations based on legal precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905. At the time, Massachusetts law empowered local health boards to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults if it was deemed crucial to the health and safety of the surrounding community. Adults who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine. During a smallpox outbreak in 1902, the city of Cambridge mandated the vaccination of all of its residents. One resident, Henning Jacobson, refused, sparking a case that eventually went before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court upheld the vaccination requirement. That decision firmly established the power of states and other government entities to enforce compulsory vaccinations in the interest of public health, according to legal scholars. "A community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members," Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in the majority opinion in the case. California's Current Vaccination Laws Vaccinations for California schoolchildren are currently regulated by Senate Bill 277, which passed in June 2015. The legislation was prompted by an outbreak of measles at Disneyland in 2014 that ultimately infected more than 150 people from eight different states, Mexico and Canada. For decades, California has mandated vaccinations against measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, hepatitis B, influenza type B, polio, whooping cough, tetanus and chickenpox. But passage of the law removed personal belief exemptions, giving California one of the toughest vaccination mandates in the nation. Without a medical exemption, the only way parents could opt out of vaccinating their children was to home-school them or enroll them in an independent study program without classroom instruction.  The legislation also included several options for adding vaccinations to the mandated list. The state Legislature could pass a new statute or amend the law at any time, opting to add a new vaccination with or without a personal belief exemption. Alternatively, a clause in the law allowed the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to mandate new vaccines, taking into consideration advice from health experts. But if a vaccination is added to the schedule in this way, the legislation stipulates that personal belief exemptions must be offered to parents and students. The law raises several legal concerns for school districts currently mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for students. Dorit Reiss, a professor of law at UC Hastings in San Francisco and a member of the Vaccine Working Group on Ethics and Policy, said the law can be interpreted as a minimum standard that schools must follow and noted that one clause in the legislation gives districts “broad authority” to act in ways that do not conflict with the law. However, Reiss said legal challenges could stem from the fact that state law does not lay out any sort of formal process for individual districts to add vaccination requirements. “The argument is that because the state has extensively regulated this area, the state has occupied it, and districts cannot deviate from state law at will,” Reiss said. “The broad school immunization law covers it, and there is no room for local action.” Ultimately, it's unclear where courts will land on the issue. Jacobs said schools mandating COVID-19 vaccinations are “pushing the envelope” legally. Will More California Schools Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations? So far, just a handful of California school districts have mandated COVID-19 shots for students.  Culver City and Los Angeles Unified are the two largest districts to do so in Southern California. Neither are currently offering personal belief exemptions. Last week, the Oakland Unified School District and Piedmont Unified School District, both in Alameda County, became the first districts to mandate the vaccination in Northern California. While Piedmont Unified is only allowing medical exemptions, Oakland Unified will accept personal belief waivers. Other school districts seem less eager to jump into new mandates. Officials with the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Diego Unified School District told CalMatters earlier this month that they did not plan to set a vaccination requirement. When Culver City Unified announced its vaccination mandate, Superintendent Quoc Tran told EdSource that he believed the requirement was legally sound. He said school officials did not ask district lawyers to look at the policy. A spokesperson for Los Angeles Unified declined to comment on the school's legal authority for this article, and a spokesperson for Oakland Unified said they could not discuss legal specifics with PolitiFact California as the school believes “there is the possibility of litigation on this topic.” If school districts get challenged in court, Jacobs, with the McGeorge School of Law, said a judge could issue an emergency order to halt vaccination requirements as the case moves through the legal system. It's also possible that districts soon won't be making the vaccination rules in classrooms across the Golden State. During a media briefing last week, California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said officials are considering a statewide requirement, although no definitive decision has been made. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday said school mandates are “still on the table.” In the meantime, whether or not California school districts can independently require students to get vaccinated will likely be fought out in the courts.  That process may be repeated across the country as districts in other places confront their own state laws on vaccinations in schools. “State law controls,” Jacobs said. “It will be up to a court to look at these sources of state law to determine what's happening.” Source List:  Email interview with Dorit Reiss, a professor of law at UC Hastings and a member of the Vaccine Working Group on Ethics and Policy, Sept. 23, 2021 Zoom interview with Leslie Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at McGeorge School of Law and director of the Capital Center for Law & Policy, Sept. 23, 2021 The Los Angeles Times, Culver City Unified to require student COVID-19 vaccinations, in what may be a first, Aug. 18, 2021 The Los Angeles Times, L.A. school officials order sweeping student vaccine mandate, a first by a major district, Sept. 9, 2021 ABC7, Parents protest vaccine mandates despite Glendale Unified not having requirement for students, Sept. 24, 2021 Cornell Law Library Legal Information Institute, Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts California Legislative Information, Senate Bill No. 277 National Conference of State Legislatures, States With Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From School Immunization Requirements, April 30, 2021 The Los Angeles Times, California Legislature passes mandatory vaccination bill, June 29, 2015 SF Gate, State Assembly approves vaccine bill, June 25, 2015 Centers for Disease Control, Measles Outbreak — California, December 2014 - February 2015, Feb. 20, 2015 Culver City Unified School District, Facebook post, Aug. 17, 2021 Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles Unified to Require All Students 12 and Older to be Vaccinated Against COVID-19 by January 10, 2022, Sept. 9, 2021 Los Angeles Unified School District, Safe Steps to Safe Schools: Frequently Asked Questions Piedmont Unified School District, PUSD Board Meeting Summary – September 22, 2021, Sept. 24, 2021 Oakland Unified School District, OUSD Board of Education Passes Vaccine Requirement for Students 12 Years Old and Up, Sept. 23, 2021 CalMatters, Other school districts in no rush to follow Los Angeles Unified vaccine mandate, Sept. 10, 2021 EdSource, Culver City Unified mandates Covid vaccine for students, possibly a first for California, Aug. 18, 2021 NBC Bay Area, California Considers COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Students 12 and Up, Sept. 23, 2021

By Chris Nichols Updated at 10:54 a.m. on September 24, 2021 Reports about vaccinated Americans catching COVID-19 are energizing vaccine skeptics and leading to more misinformation about efficacy and breakthrough cases. CapRadio's PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols examined the facts about breakthrough infections in this week's Can You Handle The Truth. Nichols sat down and spoke with CapRadio's afternoon anchor Randol White and broke everything down. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On how rare breakthrough COVID-19 cases are feeding into misinformation One example is a popular and misleading post on Instagram. It wrongly claimed that the vaccines are “the first in history to not prevent people from catching or spreading a virus” and that they only last a few months. PolitiFact found that is completely false. No vaccine is 100% effective. That's the case for the flu vaccine and also the case for the COVID-19 vaccines. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says on its website some fully vaccinated people will get sick, some will even be hospitalized or die from COVID-19, and that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections can also spread the disease. On current COVID-19 cases in unvaccinated people Studies show vaccinated people are eight times less likely to be infected — and 25 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people, according to the CDC. And those who are fully vaccinated and get one of these breakthrough cases are less likely to suffer a serious illness. On the false claim that vaccine efficacy ‘only lasts for months' It's still not clear how long the protection provided by the vaccines will last. Health officials are still debating whether everyone will need a booster shot. But the last part of the social media post is misleading because plenty of other vaccines require boosters. People are asked to take the flu vaccine every year, and vaccines against Hepatitis B, whooping cough, chickenpox and measles all require multiple shots. On the odds of a fully vaccinated person developing a breakthrough case The New York Times found that the average vaccinated American's odds of getting a breakthrough infection are roughly 1 in 5,000 a day, or 1 in 10,000 in highly vaccinated states. They used data on daily average COVID-19 cases in different parts of the country to arrive at these odds. A recent CDC report includes data showing the odds of a breakthrough might be even lower, at about 1 in 5,000 per week. PolitiFact found all of these statistics have some limitations. For example, they don't take into account the undercounting of breakthrough infections. But, they do show the vaccines are reducing infections and the overall risk of a breakthrough is low. Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the risk of breakthrough infections. They are rare, but not exceedingly rare.

By Steven Rascón False information about COVID-19 vaccines continues to spread on social media, and comes as cases are on the rise across the United States. CapRadio's PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols and contributor Steven Rascon fact-checked several claims in this week's Can You Handle The Truth segment.  They spoke with CapRadio anchor Randol White. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On a false Instagram post that makes a questionable claim about vaccines and miscarriages Chris Nichols: This post cherry-picks and manipulates some data from a scientific study to make a false and alarming claim. It says there's a high miscarriage rate, more than 80%, for women who got an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine early in their pregnancies.  The Instagram post arrives at this flawed conclusion based on a small sample of completed pregnancies known by researchers. But in reality, the majority of study participants are either still pregnant, or have not yet had follow-ups with the study's authors. Researchers said early results have not found an increased risk of miscarriage tied to the COVID-19 vaccination. They also acknowledge that there's limited data on this topic and that it requires further research. On a false claim about infants and childhood vaccines Nichols:These social media posts claim that common childhood vaccines cause sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS. PolitiFact found this is also a false, baseless claim.  SIDS refers to the sudden and unexplained death of an apparently healthy baby, also called crib death. But scientific studies have consistently shown that there is no causal relationship between vaccines and SIDS. Those studies also show that receiving recommended immunizations can lower an infant's risk of SIDS.  The CDC recommends that during their first six months, infants get vaccinated against a range of diseases, from tetanus to whooping cough to polio and several others. Studies looking at each of these vaccines have found no associations between them and SIDS.  On a misleading claim on social media that said San Francisco was allowing children to get the COVID vaccine without their parent's approval  Steven Rascon: Just as the FDA was about to approve the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use for minors, San Francisco issued a health order saying if you are a minor you can consent to the vaccine only if you are emancipated as according to the state or considered self-sufficient. Most of this information was in the health order, and it recognizes that emancipated minors are not the norm but should have a choice to receive the vaccine. Much of the misinformation came from Twitter and Facebook users sharing a portion of the health order which clearly says “San Francisco allowing minors to consent to receive the COVID vaccine.” San Francisco's Department of Public Health confirmed this was only the case for emancipated minors, and healthcare providers giving out the shot would still have to try to get a parent's consent before giving out the shot. Because San Francisco allows some minors to consent to the vaccine on their own, PolitiFact California rated this claim as Mostly False.

By Chris NicholsMisinformation played a crucial role in the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, which took place six months ago this week. CapRadio's PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols breaks down the extent to which false claims influenced those who took part in the riot. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On what PolitiFact journalists in Washington, D.C. uncovered about the insurrection In a recent investigation, PolitiFact reviewed court filings for 430 defendants arrested on charges tied to the riot. These defendants range from current and former law enforcement officials to a Washington, D.C. music teacher to conspiracy theorists here in California. PolitiFact found many of them saw their actions as patriotic, but they also found they were driven by the lie that the election was stolen and motivated by other misinformation. On how the lie that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent fueled the insurrection [The lie] was really exploited. This lie was promoted for months by former President Donald Trump. It was also repeated over and over again on conservative cable TV channels such as Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network, as well as on social media. Some of these cable channels and Trump himself continued to spread these false claims, even as local, state and federal officials verified that this was a free and fair election. Several recounts were held, but they only reinforced President Joe Biden's victory in key swing states. Importantly, judges in courtrooms across the country, some of them appointed by Trump, rejected more than 50 lawsuits brought by the former president or his allies alleging election fraud. On how many of the insurrection participants were influenced by other strains of misinformation In about half of the 430 cases PolitiFact looked at, the court documents showed how false narratives really shaped the lives of these individuals. There was a music teacher in D.C. who amplified false conspiracy theories on his podcast and YouTube channel — including the baseless conspiracy that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting never happened, that former NBA star Kobe Bryant is still alive, and even that Earth is flat. There was also a 54-year-old woman from Pennsylvania who suggested on Facebook that Democrats “have been trafficking children for years.” A witness testified that she had lost customers at the restaurant where she worked over her views on politics. On what experts in the spread of disinformation said about how the false narrative about a stolen election can be stopped They say that many of these defendants truly believe this false information and will continue to spread it. The experts say it's really up to the people in power, some who are also spreading these lies but don't necessarily believe them, to shut this down. Experts say those people need to reject these false narratives. Editor's note: PolitiFact has reviewed court filings and other information for hundreds of defendants facing charges related to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol in an ongoing effort to document what role misinformation played. This report reflects our initial findings about the way that hundreds of false claims about the 2020 election being stolen contributed to the events of that day. Our reporting will continue. To comment on this story, please go to our Facebook page. Send feedback or tips via email to truthometer@politifact.com. 

By Sasha Hupka If your time is short: The California Independent System Operator, which oversees the operations of the state's power grid, issued a Flex Alert last week amid the first heat wave of the summer. The alert asked Californians to conserve electricity when possible. It included several tips, including a suggestion to avoid charging electric cars during peak power usage hours. Most electric car drivers top off their battery regularly rather than charging it from empty to full. Therefore, many cars are equipped with charging timers and only require a few hours of charging each day, so Californians can easily avoid charging vehicles during peak hours. Experts say California's power grid can comfortably support up to 5 million electric cars on the road. Currently, there are roughly 635,000 electric vehicles registered in the state, according to the California Energy Commission. As Californians grapple with the increasing impacts of climate change, few things have come to be dreaded more than summer heat waves. This year, the scorching temperatures arrived early, prompting the first power conservation advisory of the summer on June 17 and setting off speculation on social media about how the heat could impact electric car owners. “California literally just told everyone to not charge their electric cars due to power shortage,” read a June 18 post on Facebook, which was shared more than 46,000 times. “So California just asked everyone to stop charging electric cars due to power outages … can't make this crap up,” read another, posted on June 21. There's good news for electric car owners — the rumors are missing a lot of context and aren't entirely true. But the posts spread quickly online and migrated from Facebook to other platforms, including Twitter.  They also sparked discussion about whether California has the resources to continue to move toward electric vehicles in pursuit of a greener future. “California can't provide enough electricity for the homes and businesses they have yet they're mandating everyone drive more electric cars,” read one post on Facebook. “I'm continually amazed at how stupid leftists can be.” Facebook flagged the posts as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed, so we decided to investigate. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.)  The Alert The California Independent System Operator, or CAISO, is the nonprofit tasked with operating and managing most of California's power grid. It regularly issues power conservation advisories when the grid is facing challenging conditions, such as intense heat or wildfires.  The advisories, known as Flex Alerts, encourage Californians to shift their energy usage to certain times of the day when the power grid is less stressed. “A flex alert is not a power outage,” said Gil Tal, director of the Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. “It's a way to prevent outages. We don't like that we are being told not to use electricity, but it's a much better situation than sitting in the dark if the grid is collapsing.” Usually, the alerts ask that residents conserve power during evening hours, when people are still awake and using electricity but some energy sources, such as solar power, are not available. “On a good day, solar in California can make up half of the generation,” said Severin Borenstein, a professor of business administration and public policy at UC Berkeley and the director of the Energy Institute at the university's Haas School of Business. “And so when we start to lose it, we need to have other things. One of the problems that comes up on super hot days when the demand is very high is we may not have enough of the other resources to keep the balance in the system.” In announcing the June 17 Flex Alert, CAISO encouraged people to voluntarily cut back their power usage from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. The announcement included tips on how Californians could conserve energy and advised residents to complete tasks involving high amounts of energy, such as using large appliances and charging electric vehicles, before the alert to “be as comfortable as possible” during the evening hours. The advisory never explicitly told Californians to not charge electric vehicles – just to shift their charging schedules, if possible, to accommodate limited resources in the evening. “This is completely voluntary,” Borenstein said. “There typically aren't even financial incentives. It's just a plea and that applies to electric vehicles as well.” How Electric Cars Get Charged Today, there are just under 630,000 electric cars on the road in the Golden State, according to the California Energy Commission. Although they come in many shapes, sizes and models, all of them work similarly — drive, park and plug in as needed. How long and how often electric cars need to charge depends on a variety of factors, including how far the car has traveled, what the car's top range is and what type of outlet it is hooked up to. Borenstein said charging a vehicle fully can take hours. “If you're plugging into a regular old household 110-[volt] outlet, it can take all night just to replenish a battery that's been driven 100 miles during the day,” he said. “Most houses that have charging have at least a 220-[volt] outlet and charge about twice as fast.” But most daily commutes won't completely drain an electric car's battery. Data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration shows that residents of the San Francisco Bay Area traveled an average of about 20.7 miles per day in 2019. In Los Angeles, that number was 22.5 miles each day and in Sacramento, it was 22.3 miles.  So most modern electric cars don't need to be charged on a daily basis, Tal said.  Many get plugged in every couple of days and are equipped with timers so that owners can schedule their charges. While electric car drivers might initially balk at power outages and conservation advisories, Tal said these events usually pose “no problem.” “A Flex Alert is a couple of hours and there are very, very few electric car drivers that have to charge their cars in these specific few hours,” Tal said. “Most of the drivers today and in the future will be able to delay it by a couple of hours or a couple of days if needed.” Does California Have The Power To Go Green? As of 2019, renewable sources produced just over 30% of California's power. In 2015, the state pledged to increase that number to 50% by 2030 and Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order last year that requires all new cars sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. “California is really on the cutting edge of integrating wind and solar into generation,” Borenstein said. “California also has much larger penetration of electric vehicles than any other state, and so we are on the cutting edge there, too. That gives us the opportunity to be a leader in coordinating the electric vehicles with the intermittent renewables.” If everyone drove an electric vehicle, Tal said Californians would “double” their electric use in their homes. But change is unlikely to come quickly, and the current grid is able to support short-term increases in electric cars. “We can have millions of electric cars on today's grid with no problem,” Tal said. “We have less than a million today and we can go to three, four, five million without doing any serious upgrades.” In the long run, California's power grid will need to produce and store more electricity to reliably make the shift to an entirely electrified fleet. But Tal said the process should be smooth if the changes happen “together.”  Borenstein said it's not the first time the power grid has needed to adjust to emerging technology, comparing the shift toward electric cars to when air conditioning became popular in the 1950s. Over the years, the grid successfully scaled up capacity to accommodate energy demands. Air conditioning units tend to kick in at roughly the same times because outside temperatures increase during the day and decrease overnight, which posed an additional challenge for the electric grid of the 1950s. Borenstein said electric cars will likely have an easier adjustment. “We are going to have to build up capacity here as well,” Borenstein said. “But we probably aren't going to have to build up capacity nearly as much because everybody doesn't have to charge at the same time.” As California transitions to electric vehicles and renewable power sources, Borenstein said market forces will likely promote charging during times when energy is more plentiful. “I think that's where we're going,” he said. “We're not going to make it illegal to charge your car at any particular time, but it's going to be cheaper to charge it when the grid actually is more plentiful with electricity and more expensive when the grid is tight.” Our Ruling Posts on social media claimed that California told electric car owners to “not charge” their vehicles because of a power shortage. The posts appear to refer to a Flex Alert that was issued by the California Independent System Operator on June 17. The alert encouraged Californians to voluntarily conserve energy and charge their electric vehicles before 5 p.m. to minimize possible stress on the power grid during the first major heat wave of the summer.  CAISO officials never said people could not charge their vehicles. Rather, they asked that electric vehicle owners shift their charging schedule to accommodate limited energy sources in the evening. Furthermore, experts say that most electric vehicles only need a few hours of charging each night and are equipped with timers so that owners can schedule charging periods, making it simple for Californians to voluntarily comply with the Flex Alert. The posts also kicked off debate about whether California's grid will be able to accommodate efforts to move toward electric vehicles in the coming years. But experts said the transition should be smooth as long as the shift to electric cars is coordinated with efforts to push for renewable energy sources and improve grid capacity. The posts entirely misinterpreted the Flex Alert and stoked largely unfounded fears about California's move toward green energy. Therefore, we rate these claims False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Sources: Facebook post, June 18, 2021 Facebook post, June 21, 2021 Facebook post, June 28, 2021 Twitter post, June 21, 2021 Interview with Gil Tal, director of the Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, June 25, 2021 Interview with Severin Borenstein, a professor of business administration and public policy at UC Berkeley and the director of the Energy Institute at Haas, June 29, 2021 California Independent System Operator Corporation, Flex Alert in effect today from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m., June 17, 2021 California Energy Commission, Zero Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure Statistics, April 20, 2021 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics Series: Highway Statistics 2019, Sept. 30, 2020 California Energy Commission, 2019 Total System Electric Generation Los Angeles Times, Gov. Brown signs climate change bill to spur renewable energy, efficiency standards, Oct. 7, 2015Los Angeles Times, Newsom orders 2035 phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, calls for fracking ban, Sept. 23, 2020

By Sasha HupkaA TV ad supporting Gov. Gavin Newsom in the recall election claims the governor is “getting 65,000 homeless Californians into housing.” CapRadio's PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols fact-checked that claim in this week's Can You Handle The Truth segment. Meanwhile, PolitiFact California contributor Sasha Hupka fact-checked a claim about Newsom's power to extend the COVID-19 state of emergency. Nichols and Hupka joined CapRadio's afternoon anchor Randol White to discuss both claims. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On the ad supporting Newsom and if the numbers check out Chris Nichols: The ad was produced by Stop The Republican Recall of Governor Newsom Committee. This is a group formed by Democrats supporting Newsom. They've produced several TV ads that talk about how the governor is helping Californians. The ad focused on things like the state stimulus checks he approved, but then they also make a claim about homelessness that caught our attention. “Gov. Gavin Newsom has California roaring back,” the ad said. “What does that mean for you? Newsom is delivering money to your pocket, cleaning up our streets, and getting 65,000 homeless Californians into housing.” This claim really needs some context. Newsom has proposed spending a record $12 billion on homelessness. The big focus is on housing people — but that's a plan that stretches over the next three fiscal years, according to his proposed budget. On getting more context on the state's homelessness crisis and the state's Project Roomkey initiative Nichols: It's not easy to house the unhoused, and it's mainly the job of the cities, counties and nonprofits to do this challenging, time-consuming work. Though state funding and technical assistance do help. Project Roomkey has helped more than 40,000 homeless Californians. It provided them with temporary shelter in motels during the worst of the pandemic. CapRadio recently reported that only about 30% of those who left the program have gone on to find permanent or temporary housing. So, Newsom and local governments have a big challenge ahead to house that 65,000 number talked about in the campaign ad. On Gov. Newsom's ability to keep a state of emergency declaration active Sasha Hupka: We saw claims on Facebook that Newsom can't extend the state of emergency and that it expired last year, but that's simply not true. In fact, he's already extended it several times. The laws which govern such things say very clearly [that] a declaration is ended either by him or by concurrent resolution in the legislature. A concurrent resolution is used to resolve issues that pertain to both the Assembly and Senate. Legal experts say it's a check on Newsom's power because it means both he and a majority of the legislature have to agree … the declaration should continue. Experts say there is also a check in the form of public opinion. This is especially true for Newsom, who is facing a recall election. On what the ongoing state of emergency does, and why to keep it Hupka: It allows officials to address the crisis, which could be important if cases spike again. It also unlocks funding California usually wouldn't have access to. PolitiFact rated the claim that Newsom has “no power or authority” to extend the state of emergency as False.

By Chris Nichols Some emails that Dr. Anthony Fauci sent during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic have been released, leading to a new round of misleading posts on social media. PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols joins CapRadio Anchor Randol White on this week's Can You Handle The Truth segment. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On how these emails came to light  Fauci, who is the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, wrote these emails in the winter and spring of last year. But they were not released through some unsanctioned or underhanded way. Instead, the federal government provided these emails to The Washington Post and BuzzFeed News after they filed Freedom of Information Act requests. That act gives the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. The news outlets then published many of these emails in their news reports. On the false claim's misrepresentation of Fauci's early mask recommendations These claims make the false argument — one that we've heard a lot over the past year — that masks are ineffective in preventing COVID-19. They essentially say that Fauci lied to the public about masks, and they take him out of context. They do this by citing one of his emails from early February last year, where he recommends mask-wearing only for people infected with the virus. That was the consensus at the time, and mask-wearing was not common until later on. The guidance from Fauci and other experts changed in April last year, as more evidence about the virus and its transmission emerged. That's when mask-wearing was widely recommended. It came after clearer findings that showed the virus could be transmitted by people who showed no symptoms. PolitiFact rated the claim about Fauci lying about masks as False. On the other false claim that Fauci "lied" about rheumatoid arthritis and lupus medication, hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine is also the medication former President Donald Trump famously touted. The emails show that Fauci did express interest in the drug early on, but he also said that more data was needed to prove whether it was effective. So, his comments in the email are in line with what he's said in public and with the general scientific agreement on the drug.

By Chris Nichols Vice President and former California Senator Kamala Harris recently claimed one-third of all small businesses have closed during the pandemic. CapRadio's PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols fact-checked that and other statements in this week's Can You Handle The Truth segment. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On when Harris made this claim and if it's correct She made it during a TV interview that aired this week on MSNBC, and she was talking about the toll the pandemic has taken on small businesses. “This is one of my areas of focus I care so deeply about, which is … let's just be clear about where we are. Half of America's workforce works for a small business or owns a small business,” Harris said. “Sadly, during the course of the pandemic, one-third of our small businesses have closed.” It really is a stark figure, and we found a couple of sources that do support her statement. A spokesperson for Harris pointed to a Harvard University project called The Economic Tracker. That's an online platform that provides data about real-time economic trends, and it uses things like financial transaction activity to determine whether a business has closed. As of this week, the Tracker shows there are 37% fewer small businesses open nationwide compared with a couple of months before the pandemic. That share was slightly higher in California at 39%. On how this statement was fact-checked, and if there were any contradictions The Small Business Roundtable, which advocates for small businesses, published a survey in May of last year that also supports this claim. At that time, 31% of small businesses reported that they were not operating. Those fairing the worst at the time were hotels, restaurants, cafes and similar businesses. The Federal Reserve Board published a study in April that offers a slightly different but more hopeful perspective. It found there certainly were a lot of business closures over the past year, but fewer than expected ended up as permanent business closures. On a widely-shared and inaccurate social media post about Harris and President Joe Biden This was a Facebook post that claimed Biden and Harris “did not say one word about American troops, veterans or fallen military on Memorial Day.” That post is simply incorrect. The post points to tweets that Biden and Harris sent out a couple days before the Holiday that do not mention the military. However, over the weekend, both made statements honoring military members and their families. Biden and Harris participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. Biden spoke at a Memorial Day ceremony in Delaware. “Even last year during those early and dark days of the pandemic, Jill and I didn't want to let Memorial Day pass, like every other day, and there was no event here, [so] we came to lay a wreath at the plaza,” Biden said. “It was the first time we did any sort of events since the lockdown had begun in March because we were determined to honor the fallen.” In the end, PolitiFact rated the claim on Facebook as False.

By Randol WhiteMisinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine continues to spread on social media, with widely-shared and misleading posts saying it’s ineffective or even harmful.  CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with anchor Randol White for this week’s Can You Handle The Truth fact check segment.  Interview Highlights  On a false claim on Instagram about new COVID-19 cases This started with a Yale University professor who appeared on Steve Bannon’s podcast in April. And the claim, which is just wrong, was that 60% of new COVID-19 cases came from vaccinated people.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported what they call “breakthrough cases” where someone is fully vaccinated but still contracts the virus. But out of the more than 100 million fully vaccinated people in the U.S., there have been only about 9,000 breakthrough infections. That’s less than 0.01%, a really small fraction. PolitiFact rated this Pants On Fire.  On a claim that people who are vaccinated have a significantly higher death rate than those who aren’t vaccinated Our contributor Isabella Fertel fact-checked this claim, and it’s really a deceptive and incorrect post.  Public health experts told us that using these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population is misleading because the vaccinated population skews much older and has more underlying health conditions.  But it also ignores the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. In the end there’s no evidence the death rate is higher for vaccinated people, and we rated it False.  On new data from the CDC that looked at how well the vaccine protects adults 65 and older These are considered the first real-world findings in the United States, and they confirm the trial data for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.  They found that fully vaccinated adults 65 or older are 94% less likely to be hospitalized with the virus than their non-vaccinated peers.  This study also found those same adults are 64% less likely to be hospitalized if they have received only one shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.  It’s important to note that public health experts say that no vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness. On a video circulating on Facebook making false claims about vaccines The video alleges that people who are vaccinated can somehow shed parts of the vaccine leading to health complications like infertility or miscarriages for those who are not vaccinated. This again is completely wrong.  The CDC found in a preliminary study in April that there is no evidence linking the vaccines to infertility or to pregnancy complications.  The CDC also says that those who are pregnant, trying to conceive or would like to get pregnant someday can in fact get vaccinated against the virus.

By Chris Nichols Republican recall election candidate John Cox claimed this week Gov. Gavin Newsom has “just let tens of thousands of inmates out of jail.” CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with anchor Randol White about that and other claims in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview highlights On who John Cox is and his claim Cox is a San Diego County businessman. He ran and lost to Newsom back in the 2018 governor’s race. He made this statement about inmates during a kick-off event for his campaign in the recall election. More memorable than anything he said is the live 1,000-pound Kodiak bear that Cox brought to the event. But even so, here is the statement that caught our attention: “[Newsom] just let 76,000 inmates out of jail with almost no warning,” Cox said. “Many of those are going to commit other crimes. I mean, what are we going to do then? I want my daughter to feel safe. I want everybody to feel safe.” On if Cox’s claim is correct No, he really did not [get this right]. In fact, we found that Cox distorted things. Here’s what actually happened. Late last week, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation expanded a good behavior program for inmates — and Cox was right, that there wasn’t much public notice on this. But no one was let out of prison. The change makes 76,000 inmates eligible for somewhat shorter sentences. They can reduce their time by one-third. Before this change, they could reduce it, but by a smaller amount. But they’ll need to demonstrate good behavior and in some cases complete a rehabilitation program. On when incarcerated people might be released through the change and how PolitiFact California rated this claim A state prison spokesperson told us it could be months or years before anyone is released through this change. PolitiFact California rated this claim False. On how much the recall election could cost Here's what Newsom said at a press conference Tuesday “Now is not the time to waste hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on a recall effort that is nothing more than a partisan power grab,” Newsom said. And it looks like he did get those numbers right. I spoke with Donna Johnston about this. She is the Sutter County registrar. She’s also president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. Her group has been crunching the numbers on the potential cost of the recall election. Right now, if counties have to follow social distancing rules required in last fall’s election, Johnston’s group says the recall could cost $400 million. “Yes, it is a correct figure,” Johnston said. “Especially if we’re falling under the same protocols and mandates as November.” It’s not clear what rules will be in place this fall, but Johnston says elections are expensive. Everything from labor and training to printing all the ballots, paying for all the postage really adds up. So, the governor’s statement is a prediction, but he’s on the right track.

By Chris Nichols San Francisco’s early response to the coronavirus was considered a model for fighting the pandemic. But a California state lawmaker claimed this week the city experienced a drug overdose crisis that dwarfed its COVID-19 death count last year.  CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with anchor Mike Hagerty about that claim in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment.  Interview Highlights On the facts of the claim Republican state Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin made that claim on Twitter, and it was shared more than 2,000 times. For some context, Kiley has really made a name for himself by pushing back against former San Francisco mayor and current Gov. Gavin Newsom, especially on pandemic restrictions.  In this case, the numbers show Kiley is correct.  There has been a big increase in ‘drug overdose deaths’ in San Francisco. There were nearly 700 last year, much higher than in years past. That’s according to a recent medical examiner’s report. On factors that led to the increase Public health officials say it was fueled by the spread across the city of the powerful opioid fentanyl. They say it was made worse by the pandemic which isolated people and cut them off from drug treatment.  Margot Kushel is a professor of medicine at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “These deaths are preventable," Kushel said. "These deaths were on the uptick before the COVID pandemic. But much about the pandemic really impaired our ability to address it. There’s no question we are losing way too many people to this preventable cause of death.”  On how those 700 deaths compares with San Francisco’s deaths from COVID-19 last year It is more than twice the city’s COVID-19 deaths from last year, which totaled 257, according to data from city’s Department of Public Health. It’s important to note that San Francisco was praised for its early response and had one of the lowest ‘COVID-19 death rates’ of any major city in the country.  But in the end, Kiley’s statement is still correct. There were more than twice as many overdose fatalities in San Francisco than deaths due to the virus.  We rated his claim True.  On a widely-shared Facebook post that claimed Congresswoman Maxine Waters could be “sentenced” for jury tampering Our PolitiFact California contributor Sasha Hupka fact-checked that claim. This was connected to the Derek Chavin trial, he’s the police officer who was found guilty last week in the death of George Floyd.  Days before that verdict, Waters told protesters in Minnesota that if Chauvin wasn’t convicted they should “get more confrontational.”  Chauvin’s defense attorney brought them up at the trial and asked for a mistrial saying her words would influence the jury.  The judge in the case rejected that, saying the jury had been instructed not to watch the news. The judge, however, did say her words might be grounds for an appeal in the case.  Still, legal experts told us there is no evidence Waters tried to unduly influence the jury and that there’s no case to charge or sentence her for those actions.  We found the social media post misleading. We rated it Mostly False. 

By Chris Nichols Republican lawmakers are claiming a large percentage of migrants at crowded southern border facilities are testing positive for COVID-19. CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with afternoon anchor Mike Hagerty about that and other claims in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On what is happening at the southern border In recent months, there’s been a really big wave of migration. Border patrol agents have recorded more than half a million encounters with migrants since October. That’s nearly three times as many in the same period a year earlier. So, conditions are very crowded at border detention centers, and some Republican members of Congress are claiming that crowding is leading to the rapid spread of COVID-19. Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma recently visited a border detention center in Donna, Texas and posted a video on Twitter with some claims: “We have a large percentage of folks here that are COVID positive,” Lankford said. “But they’re not tested here for several days. So, they’re literally spreading it all around. And they’re released into HHS custody and into the rest of the country.” On the veracity of those claims PolitiFact found there is no definitive answer available since there are different categories of migrants being tested at different times and by varying groups across the border. But back in March, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency told lawmakers that the positivity rates for people coming across the border at the time was less than 6%. For some comparison, the average positivity rate in Texas was above 7% at that time. On testing migrants for COVID-19 and who is doing it Immigration authorities said they are working with state and local authorities and non-governmental groups to make sure that all migrants are tested “at some point during their immigration journey.” Federal health officials say that the many unaccompanied minors who have arrived are tested every three days — those who test positive are isolated from the rest. Customs and Border Protection personnel do initial checks for symptoms, and they consult with onsite medical staff. People who are presumed to be sick are sent to local health systems for testing, diagnosis and treatment, according to immigration officials. Cities, counties and nonprofits handle the vast majority of the testing and any subsequent isolation. On the work of nonprofit groups One example of what nonprofits do is the Jewish Family Service of San Diego. They help asylum-seekers reunite with their families in California and around the country. They told PolitiFact that many of these people who have had to remain in Mexico are being tested for COVID-19 in that country. Then they are tested again in the United States and remain in hotel rooms while awaiting results. On the claim that Vice President Kamala Harris broke protocol after boarding Air Force Two and did not return salutes to members of the military honor guard PolitiFact found that while presidents and vice presidents saluting the military personnel is a familiar sight, it’s not part of any official protocol or regulation. Ronald Reagan was the first president to do this, but before then, even military veterans such as Dwight Eisenhower did not do this while president.

By Chris Nichols New California Sen. Alex Padilla recently claimed that Americans can obtain a rifle quicker and easier in a majority of states than they can cast a ballot. CapRadio's PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols spoke with afternoon anchor Mike Hagerty about that claim in this week's Can You Handle the Truth? segment. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On where Padilla gave his statement, and the context of it It's important to remember that Padilla, up until a couple of months ago, was California's Secretary of State and in charge of elections. Voter access is an important issue to him. The Democratic senator made this claim last week, shortly after the mass shootings in Georgia and Colorado. He was speaking during a hearing on gun violence in the Senate Judiciary Committee. "In a majority of states, new voters are able to obtain a rifle quicker than they're able to cast their first ballot," Padilla said. "It seems to me we have our priorities entirely backward when we make it easier to buy a gun than we do to cast a ballot." On the veracity of this statement PolitiFact found that on the numbers, and this is correct. About two-thirds of states have a faster process for obtaining a gun than casting a ballot when you consider that voters have to register weeks before an election. Georgia is one example. In that state, a new voter must register to vote at least 29 days before an election, whether they plan to vote in person or by mail. That's according to the nonpartisan group vote.org. But by contrast, there is no waiting in that state when someone buys a firearm. The attacker in the Atlanta-area shootings that killed eight people legally purchased a handgun. He passed what's known as an "instant background check," which can take just minutes. Then he used the weapon the same day, according to the Associated Press. On waiting periods and how California's gun control laws work According to the Giffords Law Center, which advocates for gun control, only 10 states have waiting periods. Gun control supporters say requiring a window or even a couple of days between the purchase of a gun and taking possession can create a "cooling off" period that will lead to less violence — both for people considering harming themselves or someone else. Several states are considering adding a waiting period. That period is 10 days in California. And unlike some states, someone buying a gun in California must obtain a permit and register their gun. But the process of voting in California is much faster than in a majority of states. It's one of 21 states that allow same-day voter registration. That's where you can register and vote all on the same day — you can even do that on Election Day here in California. On how PolitiFact rated Padilla's claim about most states offering a faster process to buy a gun than vote PolitiFact pointed out that obtaining a gun and casting a ballot aren't really parallel activities. It naturally takes longer to get ready for an election than to sell a gun. But with that clarification, and given that two-thirds of states do have a faster process for buying a gun, PolitiFact rated the statement Mostly True.

By Chris Nichols Some popular Facebook posts are blaming President Joe Biden for the nation’s spike in gas prices, tying it to decisions on canceling the Keystone XL pipeline and the oil and gas leasing moratorium at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. But energy experts say the increase in gas prices is primarily due to supply and demand and is a sign the economy is slowly rebounding. CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with anchor Mike Hagerty about those claims in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth? segment. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On how much gas prices has increased since Biden’s inauguration They’ve gone up quite a bit. Nationwide, the average retail price hit $2.95 per gallon this week. That’s up nearly 50 cents from the time Biden took office in January, according to federal data. In California this week, gas prices are much higher at $3.88 per gallon. You’ll remember one year ago, as the pandemic shut down much of the economy, gas prices plummeted to under $2 per gallon. But ever since then, they’ve been going back up, and some of that rise took place under former President Donald Trump. It’s continued under Biden, though prices are rising more quickly now. On Facebook posts blaming Biden for the rise in prices Energy experts say the increase is largely due to supply and demand, rather than any presidential policies — people are driving more, there’s also more air travel now as the economy slowly rebounds. Experts say the recent production cut by the OPEC oil cartel and Russia has contributed to the price increase. On Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline and the oil and gas leasing moratorium in Alaska PolitiFact asked energy experts about that and found the decision doesn’t change today’s supply — the pipeline wasn’t operating yet. They also said any impact would take place well into the future. For similar reasons, the gas and oil leasing moratorium decision has not affected prices. That’s because the current oil supplies are not affected. Experts said it is possible that Biden’s policies could eventually affect those costs. But again, Americans likely won’t see that impact at the pump until several years from now.  

By Chris Nichols For years, California state lawmakers have pushed ideas that would allow developers to build small apartment buildings, duplexes and triplexes in neighborhoods zoned almost exclusively for single family homes. These bills, meant to address the state’s severe housing shortage and create more inclusive communities, have gained some traction. But following strong opposition, they ultimately failed at the state Capitol. Just blocks away, a local proposal is moving forward that would make the city of Sacramento one of the first in California and the nation to eliminate rules that allow only for single family homes in neighborhoods. This zoning change would permit “missing middle” housing, a term that describes duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, in these traditionally residential neighborhoods consisting of almost all single family homes. An existing triplex in the North Oak Park neighborhood.City of Sacramento 2040 Report But there are questions and confusion about what eliminating single family zoning actually means. The misunderstanding is sometimes fueled by false and out-of-context claims about the plans, as we examined in a fact check last year when then President Donald Trump and Housing Secretary Ben Carson claimed California was trying to “abolish” single-family zoning, which we found was Half True but leaves a misleading impression. Last week, the conservative website Breitbart falsely claimed the city of Berkeley “may end single family housing” and “the ability of families to live in a home where only their family resides.” Those are both distortions of the plans, which the city voted to move forward with this week but would not bring an end to the traditional housing type. PolitiFact California spoke with Sacramento city planning officials to learn more about how their proposal would work, how fast the changes might take place and debunk some misconceptions about it. What Is ‘Single Family Zoning’ And Why Is It Contentious? Single family zoning is a neighborhood model that allows only one housing unit per parcel, though duplexes are often allowed on corner lots, and is often defined by low-traffic streets and quiet cul-de-sacs. The city of Sacramento’s reform proposal is part of its long-range general plan and won’t receive a final vote until late this year. But it’s drawn praise from some of California’s leading voices on housing policy, including the San Francisco lawmaker who has pushed for similar changes at the Capitol. “Sacramento did a great thing,” State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said at a press conference last week. “I just really want to commend Mayor Darrell Steinberg and every member of the Sacramento City Council. … That’s a great model for other cities to look to.” San Francisco and San Jose are considering whether to move ahead with similar plans, while Wiener proposed legislation last week to make it easier for cities statewide to allow duplexes and small apartment buildings. Sacramento would join Minneapolis and Portland as the only major metros to end single family only zoning. Supporters of Sacramento’s plan say it will create much needed lower cost housing while also breaking down the legacy of exclusionary zoning in some of the city’s wealthiest and whitest neighborhoods where racially restrictive covenants were used in the first half of the 20th century to keep minority groups out. The proposal has also stirred fear. Some who live in single family home areas say they’re worried higher-density homes, along with added traffic and parking issues, could change the character of their neighborhoods. Some also reject the notion that it will lead to more affordable housing, noting there is no mandate to require that. “This is not doing anything for affordable housing,” said Maggie Coulter, president of the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association, which represents homeowners in one of the city’s older single-family areas. “To suggest that this is doing that is nonsense.” What Does It Mean To Eliminate Single Family Zoning? Housing experts and lawmakers describe Sacramento’s initiative and others like it as an effort to do away with single-family zoning. As we reported last year, non-housing experts find those descriptions confusing. “It sometimes gets repeated as ‘abolish [or ban] single-family homes,’ which implies that someone will take a wrecking ball to existing homes. Not the same thing at all!" Jenny Schuetz, who studies housing policy at the Brookings Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, told PolitiFact California last year in an email. For these reasons, Sacramento’s city planners do not use the phrase eliminating single family zoning, said Matt Hertel, the city’s acting long range planning manager. Instead, here’s how Hertel explains the proposal: “We’re changing our zoning to go from allowing exclusively single family homes to a greater variety of housing types that do still include single family homes.” An existing fourplex in the Land Park neighborhood.City of Sacramento 2040 Report Would Single Family Home Construction Be Banned? No, this is a misconception. “We would not do that,” confirmed Greg Sandlund, acting planning director for the city of Sacramento. “We are not banning single family construction.” Sandlund added that future subdivisions will still have single family homes, “but we would likely encourage a variety of housing types, not just only single family zones.” Sacramento also wants to create more housing sizes “to create a variety of income levels or rent levels and sales prices to make that area more accessible and inclusive,” he said. What Percentage Of The City Is Already Zoned Single Family?  In Sacramento, 70% of residential neighborhoods are zoned for single-family only, though duplexes are allowed on corner lots, according to a Frequently Asked Questions document produced by the city. Altogether, 43% of the city’s land mass is designated as single family zoning, an area covering about 43 square miles. But in the past, some of Sacramento’s older neighborhoods allowed more variety of housing types, including the “missing middle” options. “We know there are over 2,300 duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in our older neighborhoods,” Sandlund added. Small multi-unit housing such as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes are often called “missing middle” options because they’re more affordable than single family homes and less dense than large apartment buildings. Over the past 50 years, most cities across America have built either single family homes or apartment buildings, and “not something in between,” explained Sandlund. Property owners in Sacramento’s single family neighborhoods can also build up to two accessory dwelling units, also known as granny flats, up to 1,200 square feet each on their lots. How Does This Plan Address Racial Equity? City officials say the proposal would break down the legacy exclusionary zoning in Sacramento’s single family neighborhoods by ensuring people of all races and a greater share of socio-economic backgrounds can live in areas with good schools, parks, proximity to jobs and transit.  These are “zip codes,” Sandlund said, “where it’s been shown that you live longer if you live there versus other areas.”   “They’re also highly segregated, mostly white, more affluent because folks [people of color] were not allowed to buy into those communities and build equity,” he added. Racially restrictive covenants, which were part of a racist system called redlining, were used in the first half of the 20th century as a way to keep African-Americans, Asian-Americans and other residents of color out of certain neighborhoods in Sacramento and in cities across America.  They appeared in the Sacramento region as early as the 1920s in what is now the Land Park neighborhood and Elmhurst and quickly spread to other parts of the city, according to a housing report by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled these racist covenants unconstitutional in 1948, but the Jim Crow-era language survives in the property records of many houses in Sacramento and across California, often without owners realizing it. “Now those covenants are no longer in effect,” Sandlund said. “But also if you want to live in a nice area, your only option is to rent one of these homes or buy them. And those rents and those sales prices are really high right now and they just continue to grow.” Would This Zoning Change Lead To Large Apartment Buildings? The fear that giant apartment buildings will pop up in single family neighborhoods is misplaced and wrong, according to city planners. “We want to check the size of development in these areas,” Sandlund said. “Because in doing so when you check the size but allow more density, you get smaller, more affordable units. And we want the size and the look of these fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes to reflect the scale of the neighborhood.” An existing triplex in the Curtis Park neighborhood.City of Sacramento 2040 Report What’s The Timeline For Sacramento’s Proposal? The city council is expected to vote on the general plan in December 2021. After, the city will need to update its zoning code in 2022 and could start allowing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single family neighborhoods later that year. How Will The City Decide Height And Size Limits? Sacramento’s zoning code and citywide design standards would set the rules for how tall and large the new housing options could be. Right now, the maximum height for homes in the city’s R1 single family zone is 35 feet. Additionally, homes must be set back at least 20 feet from the street and 15 feet from the back fence. They can only cover “only cover typically 40 percent, not to exceed 50 percent of the lot,” Hertel said. “So, you have to have open space on the lot.” “I haven’t seen the [city] council express a desire for large buildings in these areas, actually the opposite. They are concerned about their constituents. They are concerned about the scale,” Sandlund said. Should the city council approve the general plan this year, planners expect to update the zoning code in 2022 to define limits for the new housing options. “We’re going to work diligently with the community and consultant team to really get those development standards correct for duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes,” Hertel said. “The [building] envelope as you see it today won’t change substantially. It will be the same type of envelope. But the number of doors on that envelope could change. It could go from one to two to three doors.” Would This Actually Lead To More Affordable Housing? Some opponents of the plan say it won’t create affordable housing given California’s exorbitant housing construction costs. But Sacramento city planners say the change will lead to “lower cost housing options,” emphasizing it’s not a traditional, government-subsidized affordable housing program. Still, dividing up a large home into multiple units leads to “some naturally affordable housing” that’s less expensive than renting or buying the whole house, Hertel said. The change should produce “maybe not the affordability level for low and very low income communities,” he continued, “but adds to the overall housing stock something that can be rented at a lower price than a 2,000 square foot unit.” Hertel said the city expects many of the initial housing options will come from existing homes that are retrofitted into duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes. Others would come from new construction on vacant lots.  Coulter, of the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association, said it’s not realistic to think that property owners who spend money to retrofit their homes into duplexes or triplexes will do anything other than charge market rate for the units, making them unaffordable for most Sacramentans. She said Sacramento is already addressing its affordable housing shortage by building dense new apartment buildings in Midtown and downtown. Residents who moved to places like Elmhurst should be able to preserve the calm and quiet that attracted them in the first place, she continued, rather than have it transformed by added density, noise and cars. “People want to have a choice,” Coulter said. “Not everyone wants this.” How Many New Homes Would This Create? In the first few years, city planners estimate perhaps 100 new units would be built annually. They emphasized the plan is a long-term policy meant to return greater housing diversity to existing neighborhoods. Officials say this is one small slice of the city’s overall strategy to address the tremendous need for more housing in Sacramento. The state requires the city to accommodate and plan for 45,580 new housing units by 2029, including 17,000 that are affordable to the lowest-income residents. How Would Parking Be Affected?  Sacramento’s single family R1 zoned neighborhoods require lots to include at least one off-street parking space per unit. Under the current parking standards, a duplex would require two off-street parking spaces, a triplex would need three spaces and a fourplex would require four, according to a city report on the plan. How Does The Plan Address Climate Change? Supporters say permitting more homes within existing neighborhoods will cut down on the need for sprawling new housing development. That, in turn, will reduce commutes and the vehicle emissions that make climate change worse. “Having more housing opportunities near transit, near jobs, near schools,” Hertel said, will help “reduce our carbon footprint.” How Can Sacramentans Get Involved? Officials expect the city’s long-range planning document, the Draft 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, will be available for public review in summer 2021. More information about it is at sac2040gpu.org. People can also sign-up for email updates at the end of this city FAQ document. What are your questions about Sacramento’s plans to eliminate single family only zoning? Email PolitiFact California at politifactca@capradio.org. We’ll consider them in future updates to this news article.  Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of square miles zoned in Sacramento for single-family homes. The correct number is 43 square miles. Source List Matt Hertel, City of Sacramento’s acting long range planning manager, video interview, Feb. 18, 2021 Greg Sandlund, City of Sacramento’s acting planning director, video interview, Feb. 18, 2021 State Sen. Scott Wiener, news conference, Feb. 18, 2021. City of Sacramento, Frequently Asked Questions document, accessed February 2021. City of Sacramento, General Plan 2040 website, accessed February 2021. Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Housing Policy Toolkit, June 2020 PolitiFact California, Trump Claims California Lawmaker Pushed To 'Abolish Single-Family Zoning.' Is He Right?, Aug. 17, 2020 Los Angeles Times, Sacramento may allow apartments in single-family home areas, Feb. 10, 2021 Sacramento Bee, Sacramento CA new housing proposal angers some neighborhoods, Jan. 10, 2021. Sacramento Bee, Sacramento moves forward with controversial zoning change designed to address housing crisis, Jan. 19, 2021 Mercury News, Will San Jose move to densify single-family neighborhoods like Sacramento just did?, Jan. 25, 2021. UC Berkeley Terner Center For Housing Innovation, Sacramento Leapfrogs State Capitol in Zoning Reform Race, Jan. 28, 2021 City of Sacramento, City Council Shows Strong Support For Allowing More Housing Types In Single-Family Neighborhoods, Jan. 25, 2021.

By Bill McCarthy and Chris Nichols IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT California verified signatures for mail-in ballots cast in the 2020 election. Officials in the state’s 58 counties were required by law to check the signature on each voter’s ballot envelope against the signature from that person’s voter registration. The same law that requires signatures for vote-by-mail ballots also applies to recall petitions like the one circulating in an effort to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom. After Republicans seeking to recall California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said they had reached the number of signatures necessary to trigger a special election, one conservative influencer falsely claimed that the organizers have faced hurdles that voters in November’s election did not. "So California is requiring signature verification for Gavin Newsom’s recall, but didn’t require it for the mail in ballots. How strange," said actor Kevin Sorbo, who starred as "Hercules" in a TV series about the mythological hero, in a tweet sent to hundreds of thousands of followers. A screenshot of Kevin Sorbo's tweet making false claims about California's election laws. In fact, California did require signature verification for mail-in ballots for the 2020 election, as PolitiFact reported in the months leading up to Election Day. Several election officials, experts, journalists and fact-checkers debunked Sorbo’s Feb. 15 tweet soon after it was posted. But the tweet still circulated widely, picking up thousands of retweets and likes. It was further amplified on the platform by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. The claim was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A screenshot of Rudy Giuliani's Instagram post sharing Kevin Sorbo's false claims about California's election laws. In addition, Buzz Patterson, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully last year for Congress in California’s 7th Congressional District in the Sacramento area, made a similar false claim that vote-by-mail signatures were not verified during last year’s general election. Sorbo has previously pushed false information from his social media accounts, including the baseless claim that antifa was behind the U.S. Capitol riot. Facebook removed his page Feb. 12 for sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines, a company spokesperson said.  This time, PolitiFact decided to step in with the facts. (Sorbo did not respond to a request for comment submitted through his website.) California has signature verification for mail-in votes and recalls Election officials rejected Sorbo’s claim.  "Sorbo’s tweet is not true," Sam Mahood, a spokesperson for the California Secretary of State’s Office wrote in an email, citing the office’s own fact check on this topic. "That tweet was totally inaccurate," added Amber McReynolds, a national expert on election administration and Denver’s former elections director. For a vote-by-mail ballot to count in California, the voter must sign the outside of their ballot’s envelope before they return it. California election law then requires officials in all 58 counties to verify the signatures on the envelope using the voter’s signature on file, which is the one provided when a person registers to vote. The same law requires officials to cross-check recall petition signatures with the signature on a voter registration record.  FACT: CA county elections officials verify the signatures on EVERY?vote-by-mail ballot ?initiative, referendum, or recall petition ?candidate nomination document.*Source:https://t.co/Laj17g6qk0 pic.twitter.com/RNtbU6FOM8 — CA SOS Vote (@CASOSvote) February 15, 2021 The method used to verify signatures for vote-by-mail ballots is different county-by-county. Some use software while others use county staff to examine signatures one at a time, Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, told PolitiFact California last year.  Thousands of vote-by-mail ballot signatures are rejected every election when officials determine they don’t match with the signature on file. Nearly 50,000 were rejected last November, added Alexander, describing the rejections as "clear evidence that there is a signature check requirement."  A law signed in 2018 requires election officials to notify voters at least eight days before the certification of the election when they reject a signature and give them a chance to provide a valid one.  Signatures collected for petitions, like the effort to recall Newsom,are also verified at the county level. Mahood said the process should "generally be the same" as the process for verifying signatures on ballots, save for the fact that petitions carry multiple signatures, not one. Supporters of the recall have criticized Newsom for what they describe as draconian stay-at-home orders during the coronavirus pandemic, as well as for the state employment department’s failure to quickly issue jobless benefits over the past year as hundreds of thousands of people lost jobs during the shutdowns. In recent weeks, the governor has faced criticism for the state’s slow roll-out of COVID-19 vaccinations. Our ruling Sorbo said, "So California is requiring signature verification for Gavin Newsom’s recall, but didn’t require it for the mail in ballots." On the contrary, California did require signature verification for mail-in ballots during the 2020 election. Officials in all 58 of the state’s counties were required by law to check the signature on each voter’s ballot envelope against the signature from that person’s voter registration. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! Our Sources Kevin Sorbo on Twitter (archived), Feb. 15, 2021  Various searches on Hoaxy, accessed Feb. 16, 2021 California Secretary of State, "Signature Verification, Ballot Processing, and Ballot Counting (Emergency Regulations)," accessed Feb. 16, 2021 California Secretary of State, "Current Recall Efforts," accessed Feb. 16, 2021 Mike Huckabee on Twitter (archived), Feb. 16, 2021 Rudy W. Giuliani on Twitter (archived), Feb. 15, 2021 Rudy W. Giuliani on Instagram (archived), Feb. 15, 2021 Buzz Patterson on Twitter, Feb. 15, 2021 CA SOS Vote on Twitter, Feb. 15, 2021 Sam Mahood on Twitter, Feb. 15, 2021 Daniel Dale on Twitter, Feb. 15, 2021 Amber McReynolds on Twitter, Feb. 15, 2021 John Myers on Twitter, Feb. 15, 2021 Yashar Ali on Twitter, Feb. 15, 2021 California Secretary of State, "Procedures for Recalling State and Local Officials," 2020 PolitiFact California, "Advice For Making Sure Your Mail-In Ballot Gets Counted In California," Oct. 23, 2020 PolitiFact California, "Answering Questions About Vote-By-Mail In California Amid COVID-19, Attacks By Trump," June 2, 2021 Email correspondence with Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, Feb. 16, 2021 Email correspondence with Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, Feb. 16, 2021 Email interview with Amber McReynolds, chief executive officer of the National Vote at Home Institute, Feb. 16, 2021 Email interview with Sam Mahood, press secretary for the California Secretary of State’s Office, Feb. 16, 2021 Statement from Facebook, Feb. 16, 2021

By Chris NicholsWould raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour “destroy up to 3.7 million jobs” in the United States? That’s what GOP House Minority Leader and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy claimed in the headline of a press release on Tuesday as Democrats in Congress began debating the move. On Twitter the same day, McCarthy wrote the wage hike “could put nearly 4 million Americans out of work.” This is a screen shot of the headline from McCarthy’s press release. The Biden Administration last month proposed raising the federal minimum hourly pay from $7.25 to $15, with increases of about $1.50 every year for five years. To make that happen, Congressional Democrats introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 last month and began considering the legislation in the House Committee on Education and Labor this week. Here’s what McCarthy said in the body of the press release: “At this critical point, the Democrats’ big, creative response is to raise the federal national wage to $15 an hour — a move the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previously found could cost nearly 4 million workers their jobs.” President Joe Biden initially included the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour in his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. But he predicted last week it would be left out due to opposition from Republicans and centrist Democrats. Given the debate over raising the wage and its impact on jobs, we decided to take a closer look at McCarthy’s claim in this fact check. Our Research In his press release and tweet, McCarthy linked to an analysis of the wage proposal by the Congressional Budget Office published on Monday. The CBO, a nonpartisan research service, predicted the wage hike would eliminate jobs, but would also raise wages for an estimated 17 million people and lift 900,000 people out of poverty. It doesn’t say anything about destroying an estimated “3.7 million” positions as McCarthy claimed. Instead, the CBO said “the average estimate is that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers.” The report goes on to say there’s a “one-third chance” the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy’s number. “Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment,” the report adds. A spokesperson for McCarthy did not respond to questions. Deborah Kilroe, a spokesperson for the CBO, said McCarthy likely got his figure from a July 2019 CBO report that also examined raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. That older analysis predicted the “median estimate” for job losses would be 1.3 million. Meanwhile, it said “there is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers.” That last figure lines up with McCarthy’s statement of “nearly 4 million workers,” but it comes from the high-end of an old report and ignores what the CBO published this week. Last month, FactCheck.org found Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul also distorted the facts on this topic. The senator told Fox News that “the government estimates are close to 4 million people will lose their jobs,” if the minimum wage hike goes through. FactCheck.org examined the July 2019 CBO report [the current report had yet to be published] and found Paul cherry-picked the high-end of that report. Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour “would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.” McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBO’s new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added there’s a “one-third chance” the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy’s claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Source List Rep. Kevin McCarthy, press release and  tweet. Feb. 9, 2021. Congressional Budget Office, The Budgetary Effects of the Raise the Wage Act of 2021, February 2021. Congressional Budget Office, The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage, July 2019. Deborah Kilroe, spokesperson, Congressional Budget Office, email exchange Feb. 10, 2021. The Washington Post, CBO report finds $15 minimum wage would cost jobs but lower poverty levels, Feb. 8, 2021 FactCheck.org, Paul Distorts CBO’s Estimate on Impact of $15 Minimum Wage, Jan. 22, 2021

By Chris Nichols The campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom this week shared the false claim that Facebook tried to “shut down” the recall effort. PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with CapRadio anchor Mike Hagerty about it in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview highlights On what the recall campaign said about Facebook’s actions The recall campaign spread some false information through its Instagram account. It shared a blog post that said Facebook was trying to “shut down” the recall effort by not allowing it to place ads on its platform. We found that’s just a really big distortion of what happened. In reality, Facebook announced last fall that it would stop accepting all political ads regardless of party affiliation. Its goal was to curb the spread of misinformation, so there is no evidence that the Newsom recall campaign was singled out. “One of the new policies that we’re announcing is we’re going to block new political and issue ads in the last week of the campaign,” Zuckerberg said on CBS This Morning last September. Facebook went on to extend that policy into December. It then made an exception for the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia before resuming its ban on political ads in January. On what political campaigns can do on Facebook if they can no longer buy ads In the case of the recall campaign, they can do a lot of things. They have a strong presence on Facebook that includes a public group where more than 20,000 members share information about upcoming recall drives. They have another 16,000 followers on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook. We rated the claim that Facebook was targeting the Newsom recall campaign as False. On the claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought Tesla stock soon before Biden signed the executive order for all federal vehicles to be electric Our national partner PolitiFact looked at an image shared on Facebook that claims Pelosi bought more than $1 million in Tesla Stock. Tesla is the electric carmaker based in California. This claim says Pelosi made the purchase the day before President Joe Biden signed an order for all federal vehicles to be electric — it strongly implies that she was trying to profit from inside information about new government policies. PolitiFact found a few problems with this claim. Pelosi’s husband did buy stock options in Tesla for up to $1 million, but that was back in December, and not the day Biden signed his order. Speaker Pelosi did disclose the purchase as required by law. PolitiFact also found that Biden’s order just asks federal agencies to move towards zero-emission vehicles — it doesn’t actually require them to purchase electric vehicles. PolitiFact also pointed out that Biden made it clear throughout his campaign for president that he wanted the federal fleet to move in this direction, so that goal is really no secret. “We have to move towards a net-zero emissions,” Biden said during the final presidential debate. “The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production. By 2050, totally.” PolitiFact rated the claim that Pelosi used insider information to purchase stock as mostly false.

By Chris Nichols Social media users this week falsely suggested baseball legend Hank Aaron’s death was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. CapRadio anchor Steve Milne spoke with PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols about that and other examples of vaccine misinformation in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment.  Interview Highlights On what the posts allege  They are strongly and falsely implying that Aaron died from the COVID-19 vaccine that he received in early January. PolitiFact and other news outlets examined these claims and found there is no evidence to support them. In fact, just the opposite. The Fulton County Medical Examiner’s office told PolitiFact that there was no indication that the vaccine contributed to his death. That office said Aaron appeared to have died of natural causes. One of the saddest parts about all this misinformation is that Aaron himself was really proud to publicly take the vaccine so that he could help build trust among Americans who are worried about its safety.  “I feel quite proud of myself for doing something like this," Aaron told the Associated Press. "It’s just a small thing that can help zillions of people in this country.” And then of course we saw those posts that had no connection to reality.  On what public health experts have said about vaccine safety Infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci has spoken publicly about them many times. He has knocked down this idea that the speed with which the vaccines were developed means they are not safe -- Some people expressed concern that corners were cut or there were political motivations. Here’s what Fauci told ABC in December:  "The speed was not at all at the sacrifice of safety," Fauci told ABC in December. "The speed was the reflection of extraordinary advances in the science of vaccine platform technology." Fauci in a separate interview also talked about all of the trials done on these vaccines, making the point there is a record to show the safety of the vaccines. “We’ve had clinical trials, and thanks to the volunteers, in tens of thousands who have put themselves on the line to prove to the country and the world that these are safe and effective products," he said. On other misinformation about vaccines There’s really been a lot of bad information on this topic, and these false claims have spread in online communities that are skeptical of medical science and the power of the federal government.  PolitiFact has fact-checked many unproven and inaccurate claims on this topic. Those include the false allegations that say the coronavirus vaccines can cause death and infertility; that all Americans will be forced to get vaccinated; and even the really wild claims that say the vaccines are part of a larger plan to implant people with microchips.

If Your Time Is Short: California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed “Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes.”  But infectious disease experts say government shutdowns do work by reducing social interaction which, when maintained, cuts down on the spread of COVID-19.  Several studies, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show government-imposed closures, when combined with mask-wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene, are effective.  The studies and experts also point out there’s no single strategy that works on its own. In early December, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a regional stay-at-home order to curb the state’s record spread of COVID-19, which has skyrocketed 117% to 1.6 million cases over the past two weeks.  The new business and travel restrictions were tied to intensive care unit capacity and kicked in within days across most of the state, shutting down bars, wineries, movie theaters, salons, barber shops, all restaurant dining and limiting retailers to operating at no more than 20% capacity. “The bottom line is if we don’t act now, our hospital system will be overwhelmed,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a news conference on Dec. 3 when he introduced the order.   Shortly after, the state’s GOP lawmakers criticized the move, saying it would harm business and claiming there’s no evidence government “lockdowns” work. 

By Chris Nichols California’s new regional stay-at-home order allows for schools that had already opened their campuses to keep them open — but how safe is in-person learning? CapRadio PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols joins CapRadio’s Mike Hagerty to discuss school safety during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On school safety research amid the COVID-19 pandemic Public health experts told PolitiFact that the best evidence continues to show that COVID-19 poses less danger to children, though kids still can get infected and they can spread the virus. PolitiFact spoke with Sara Johnson, who is a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore. She said that children younger than 10 are far less likely to be infected by COVID-19 than older children and adults. She also said those younger kids are less likely to transmit the virus to other people. Johnson cited three recent studies to back this up, including one from this fall. On the lessons learned from California and nationwide schools returning to in-person learning There are some common-sense findings at least so far: For example, the schools that reopened with public health mitigation measures in place — things like mask use, social distancing and ventilation — those schools have avoided significant spread of the virus. Experts say those measures really need to be enforced for schools to prevent transmission. They said schools also have to be willing to close back down once levels of community spread begin to spike. On President-elect Joe Biden’s comment on vaccination and what surveys show about American vaccine acceptance Biden claimed in a recent interview on CNN that people have “lost faith in the ability of the vaccine to work.” He added that the number of Americans willing to get a vaccine was “staggeringly low.” Most polls show that between 50 to 70% of Americans are willing to get vaccinated. Biden does have a point here because those rates are not as high health experts would like to see in order to fully stop the coronavirus. That skepticism is even higher among Black and Latino Americans who have been hit harder by the disease. Despite this, health experts said they aren’t despairing just yet. They said that history has shown that educational campaigns can boost confidence in new vaccines, making people more willing to get a shot. PolitiFact rated his claim Half True.

By Chris Nichols Legal scholars have said that there’s nothing in the Constitution that explicitly prohibits presidents from pardoning themselves, but there are some legal arguments against it. So, could President Donald Trump pardon himself? To learn more, CapRadio’s Mike Hagerty spoke with PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols to explore that question. Interview Highlights On the Justice Department’s possible secret bribe for pardon scheme and whether Trump can pardon himself To add some background here, two years ago, Trump tweeted about this. He claimed he has “the absolute right to PARDON myself,” adding, “but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?” PolitiFact asked legal scholars about this for a recent article. One of the major takeaways is that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit presidents from pardoning themselves. There are some legal arguments against it. For example, the Constitution’s pardon clause uses the term “grant,” which would typically mean giving to someone else, but no president has ever tried this. And because of that, the experts say no one really knows if the courts would uphold a self-pardon or not. On how there is no sign that current federal criminal cases have been opened against the outgoing president That’s correct. There is also no clear sign that the incoming Joe Biden administration would pursue any cases against Trump once he leaves the White House. But, again, Trump raised the topic of a self-pardon two years ago. On how the president could legally receive a pardon One possible scenario is for Trump to step down and allow Vice President Mike Pence to pardon him. If Pence agreed to this, experts say it would probably be a valid pardon. One way it could work is the president could simply resign, as late as a few moments before Biden is sworn in, allowing Pence to be president for that brief time. And if all the pardon papers were drawn up, Pence could quickly sign them and they would become valid. On if Trump could be pardoned for crimes that haven’t been charged yet The answer is yes, Trump could preemptively pardon himself. Even though pardons are normally granted after a conviction, they can also be granted for crimes that have occurred but haven’t yet been charged. That’s how President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon worked after Nixon resigned. Ford granted a “full, free and absolute pardon” for Nixon. It covered “all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in,” from the time Nixon took office in Jan. 1969 through the time he stepped down in Aug. 1974.

By Chris Nichols False allegations of voter fraud continue to spread weeks after the presidential election. PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with CapRadio’s Mike Hagerty debunking these claims. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Interview Highlights On misleading allegations about voter fraud in Georgia Election officials found more than 2,600 uncounted votes in a county north of Atlanta. Most of those votes favored President Donald Trump, but that doesn’t mean they’re evidence of fraud. Georgia election officials said this was a matter of human error. The Secretary of State in Georgia, a Republican, has repeatedly said there is no evidence of fraud affecting the state’s election results. He told PolitiFact in an email that the uncounted ballots were an example of mismanagement at the county level,” and that they were found during a hand audit. Also, they were not expected to be enough to change the results of Georgia’s election. President-elect Joe Biden leads Trump by about 13,000 votes in that state. PolitiFact looked at a viral video making the claim, and it’s right about the 2,600 votes being uncounted but wrong about this being fraud. It rated the claims in this video Mostly False. On the claim about the 2020 election being the most secure election ever run in the United States Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin made that claim. She said it on a TV show and cited the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security as her source. This goes against what President Trump has repeatedly said. The president has continued to spread baseless claims of widespread fraud, falsely saying this was a “rigged” election. PolitiFact found that Baldwin is the one who’s correct. Two cybersecurity committees within Homeland Security released a statement last week that called the presidential election “the most secure in American history.” It went on to say that it’s normal to see the recounts in close contests; those allow for the correction of mistakes. But, Homeland Security insisted there’s no evidence that any voting system was in any way compromised. PolitiFact rated that claim True.

By Chris Nichols Election misinformation continues to spread a week after Americans cast their ballots. This includes some false claims about California’s election. CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols sets the record straight in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment. Interview Highlights On President Donald Trump sharing a misleading Twitter video on Wednesday that called into question ballot collection in Los Angeles This video shows LA County election workers legally collecting ballots from an authorized dropbox the day after Election Day. A woman approaches them and is ‘suspicious’ of what they’re doing, saying to them, “I thought they collected them [the ballots] all. I just want to document.” A poll worker responds, “No, we’re still collecting [ballots].” The woman filming asks them, “Wait, how come they already called the state?” And finally, the poll worker responds, “Because these are mail-in ballots.” The registrar’s office confirmed to PolitiFact last week when this video started circulating originally on TikTok that all drop boxes were closed and locked at 8 p.m. on Election Night. The registrar also confirmed that ballots were legally picked up the next day for processing. On President Donald Trump’s statement about the video The president added that quote, “You are looking at BALLOTS! Is this what our Country has come to?” This shows election workers LEGALLY collecting ballots from a drop box in LA the day after Election Day. The LA County Registrar, @LACountyRRCC, confirmed that all boxes were closed & locked at 8PM on Election Night & ballots were collected the next day. https://t.co/X1lfzr3v0g https://t.co/2vB0Ns6KsA — PolitiFactCalifornia (@CAPolitiFact) November 11, 2020 The answer is: He’s right; these are ballots. They are legal ballots being collected by authorized election officials. When the video first circulated last week, it had a headline about “Cheating in California,” and PolitiFact rated that False; there’s nothing illegal happening. With Trump sharing it yesterday, PolitiFact California rated that False again. And Twitter also added a warning label at the bottom of the president’s tweet. On misleading claims about voter fraud in Nevada’s presidential election Last week, President Trump’s campaign and Nevada Republicans claimed that thousands of people who moved out of Nevada still voted there in the election. The problem is that when they published a list of these people who supposedly cast fraudulent votes, they included members of the military deployed overseas, plus students from Nevada going to college in another state, and also some people who had moved out of the state within 30 days. All three of these groups were allowed to vote in Nevada’s election. This was no evidence of any widespread fraud. PolitiFact rated it False. On a conservative election watchdog group’s allegation of Californians fraudulently voting in Nevada’s election The Election Integrity Project claimed about 1,400 Californians may have unlawfully voted in Nevada’s election. PolitiFact California examined that claim in a recent article. The group said they submitted their findings to the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office, but it did not make those findings public. They also said that these are Californians who had moved out of Nevada several months before the election and were not within this 30 day period that’s allowed. The Nevada Secretary of State Office would not address this specific claim, but it pledged to investigate all credible accusations of voter fraud thoroughly. It’s important to note that not election officials in Nevada or any other state have cited any large-scale cases of wrongdoing or fraud in the election. The Nevada office added that many complaints about voter fraud lack evidence and are really complaints about process or policy.

False and misleading statements about the election are spreading across social media. For this week's 'Can You Handle The Truth' segment, CapRadio's PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols helped separate fact from fiction. There are a lot of unfounded claims that say votes for Joe Biden are appearing out of nowhere, especially in some of the contested Midwestern states. What has PolitiFact learned about those?  One prominent example is in Michigan, where early results showed President Trump in the lead on Election Night. The claims on social media ‘showed a screenshot from Decision Desk HQ,’ which is an election data service, -- they showed what appeared to be a sudden influx of about 139 thousand votes all for Biden, and not a single vote for Trump. Many Trump supporters were understandably very skeptical. But when PolitiFact looked into this, they found that Decision Desk HQ acknowledged there was an error in the data that they received from the state of Michigan -- and that the state also noticed the error and produced an updated, corrected count.  Some of the claims on social media said the episode was fraudulent. In the end PolitiFact rated these claims as False.  There was a Facebook post that went viral Wednesday that called into question California’s mail-in voting system. Can you tell us about that?  A conservative commentator Tomi Lahren claimed, without any evidence, that “mysterious mail-in ballots lying around” helped flip key states for Biden. She said this is all the result of California’s mail-in voting system spreading across the country.  I think what’s important to say here is that several of those battleground states where early results favored Trump -- continued counting legally-voted mail-in ballots. That doesn’t mean those ballots were lying around somewhere or were just suddenly discovered.  Instead, they may have actually arrived days or weeks before the election, but states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin were prohibited by law from starting to count them until Tuesday.  That’s why the count took so long. And as far as the suggestion about California, election experts reject the idea that mail-in ballots here or in any other state lead to widespread fraud, because the evidence doesn’t back that up. We rated the claim False.  There’s a lot of claims on social media right now that some voters in Arizona had their ballots invalidated because they were forced to use Sharpie pens when they filled out their ballots at the polls. What has PolitiFact found on this one?  This controversy is being called Sharpie-gate on social media. But it’s really a false controversy. Some voters in Maricopa County, which is home to Phoenix, were handed fine-tip Sharpie markers at the polls -- and some of those voters later claimed without evidence that the tabulation machines would not be able to read their ballots because of this kind of pen. But Maricopa County has repeatedly said that these Sharpies are the standard pens used at their vote centers -- and that they have the fastest-drying ink and work the best on their tabulation equipment.  The county even made a video before the election informing voters about this. PolitiFact rated this claim about Sharpies causing problems as False.  One last note, I asked California election officials about the same issue in our state, because there have been some questions here, and they said that using a Sharpie on a California ballot “will NOT invalidate that ballot.”

By Chris Nichols Millions of Californians have already cast their ballot by mail, but millions more are expected to show up to the polls for early voting this weekend and on Election Day. They’ll do this amid concerns about voter intimidation, social unrest and a statewide spike in coronavirus cases. To answer questions about how to vote this year, including how to stay safe while voting in-person and what you can and can’t do at the polls, PolitiFact California spoke with election officials and experts.  Here are answers to some commonly asked questions:  How Do I Find My Polling Place?  The California Secretary of State’s Office allows voters to look up their polling place on this website.  Also, all registered voters should have received a voter information guide from their county elections office listing their polling place or vote center. Contact information for all county election offices is here.

By Chris NicholsCalifornians are returning mail-in ballots at a record pace, with more than 5 million already returned as of Thursday. To make sure each ballot counts, officials are urging voters to take some key steps. CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols joins us for this week’s ‘Can You Handle The Truth’ segment to sort through the facts. On what officials are reminding voters to do Even though there’s almost two weeks left until Election Day, they’re reminding voters not to wait until the last minute. They’re encouraging them to mail their ballot at least a week early, which would be next Tuesday. Sacramento County elections spokesperson Janna Haynes gave some advice. “Go ahead and fill that ballot out, get it in a dropbox or put it in the mail as soon as you possibly can so that we have on our end more time to process the volume of ballots that are coming in,” Haynes said. On what happens if voters wait until Election Day to mail in their ballots Voters in California can mail their ballots right up to and including on Election Day, and a lot of people do that. But if you’re going to wait until that last day, Nov. 3, make sure you read the pickup time on the mailbox. If the mail has already been picked up from that box, your ballot won’t be postmarked on Nov. 3, which is required for it to count. On what else voters should do to ensure their ballot is counted The message I’m getting is kind of the same as that Stevie Wonder song, “Signed, sealed, delivered, I’m yours.” Officials are really emphasizing the importance of signing the outside of your mail-in ballot envelope. Forgetting to do this or getting that signature wrong has been a big problem in the past. Back in the March primary, officials rejected more than 100,000 ballots statewide. Around 70% of those showed up late, and the rest were either missing a signature or had a mismatched signature. On how election staff verifies signatures Counties use a combination of software and the human eye to check these out. In Sacramento County, if a signature is flagged by a machine, a team of two election staffers look at it and use a collection of that person’s past signatures on government documents to see if it lines up. Now, you don’t need an identical match, but the signature needs to be fundamentally the same as the one the county has on file. One way to remind yourself of a signature they have on file is just to look at your driver's license. On what happens if the signature isn’t a correct match When a county rejects a signature, they are required to contact that voter to give them a chance to correct it, with the idea being that signatures change over time It’s a process that was set in law two years ago by the Every Vote Counts Act. On what potential voters can do if they missed the online registration deadline Monday was the last day to register online and still get your mail-in ballot in time for the election, but there still are a lot of in-person options for registering to vote. You can sign up at your county elections office any day leading up to and including on Election Day. And starting this weekend, you can go and register at the first vote centers to open in 15 counties around the state. Those include Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles and several other counties. Finally, you can do what’s called “Same day voter registration” on Election Day at any polling location.

By Steve MilnePopular social media posts this week made questionable claims about Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Planned Parenthood. To sort through the facts, CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols joins us for this week’s ‘Can You Handle The Truth’ segment. On the serious allegations of these social media posts They claimed that when Harris was California's attorney general, she failed to prosecute Planned Parenthood for "selling baby parts" and that she went after two "pro-life journalists" instead. These allegations gained traction this week both on Facebook and on a website that describes itself as a pro-life news outlet. They refer back to 2014 and 2015. That's when two anti-abortion activists released edited videos of Planned Parenthood staff talking about the donation of fetal tissue — which is used for medical research and is legal as long as the provider does not profit from it. On what several states found after they looked into the allegations against Planned Parenthood A total of 12 states, many led by Republican governors, investigated Planned Parenthood, which denied the allegations.  None of the investigations ever led to any criminal findings against Planned Parenthood for this activity. So, it’s correct that Harris never brought charges. But it’s also correct to say the accusations against the group were unfounded. And the portrayal in these Facebook posts of selling “baby parts” is also really distorted. These are donations of fetal tissue as a source of cells used by researchers, and after the woman involved has provided written consent. On the allegation that Harris was going after two pro-life journalists Harris was attorney general when her office started investigating the anti-abortion activists. But she had moved on to the U.S. Senate by the time charges were brought against them for violating state privacy laws.  So, in the end, we found these posts were misleading and not accurate. We rated them False. On presidential candidate Joe Biden’s comments about “packing the courts” and Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination Biden has been asked by reporters whether he would expand the number of Supreme Court justices if he wins the presidency. This is what’s known as court-packing. Democrats would also need to control the House and Senate to accomplish this. Biden did not answer that when asked this past weekend, though he later said he was “not a fan” of the idea. But in his earlier response, he also made a questionable claim about the effort by Republicans to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year. “The only court-packing going on right now ... it’s going on with Republicans packing the court now,” Biden said at an airport. “It’s not constitutional what they’re doing.” Legal experts said the move to fast-track Barrett right before the election does seem to conflict with some Constitutional principles. But those experts also said there is no specific clause in the Constitution that would prevent Republicans from moving forward. In the end, PolitiFact rated Biden’s statement as False. On where to find official ballot drop boxes across California Earlier this week we learned that the California Republican Party set up unauthorized ballot drop boxes in several counties. The California Secretary of State has a website, caearlyvoting.sos.ca.gov, that allows anyone to enter their address or zip code and quickly find a list of the official, authorized ballot drop box locations near them, along with all the early in-person voting locations. You can also contact your county elections office.

By Chris NicholsThe wild claims and questionable statements weren't the only things flying in the room last night when California Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence faced off in the campaign's only vice presidential debate. There was even an actual fly which made an extended cameo on Pence's hair. For this week's 'Can You Handle The Truth' segment, CapRadio's PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols helped separate fact from fiction. On Harris and her statements about the current administration's relationship with science and climate change Harris criticized Pence and the Trump administration for downplaying and denying climate change, near the portion of the debate where the California wildfires came up. "Do you know that this administration took the word 'science' off the website and then took the phrase 'climate change' off the website?" Harris said. She's talking about the White House website, and she is correct. PolitiFact has rated similar claims Mostly True. On COVID-19, Harris made a False claim about President Trump when she said he called the coronavirus "a hoax" back in March. PolitiFact has looked closely at the president's words — and found that he was clearly saying "the politicization" of the virus was the Democrats' "new hoax." On Pence's statements about COVID-19 preparedness Pence, at one point, blamed the Obama-Biden administration for leaving an empty cupboard of supplies to fight a pandemic. "They left the strategic national stockpile empty," Pence said. "They left an empty and hollow plan." PolitiFact found in one way that Pence has a point: N95 masks were depleted after the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. And experts warned they should have been replenished. But overall, this is an exaggerated claim that PolitiFact has rated Mostly False in the past. Just a couple months before COVID-19 appeared, the former director of the stockpile described supplies as extensive and put their value at more than $8 billion. Democrats point out that the Trump administration had three years to replenish anything they felt was needed. Pence's comment about Harris being the most liberal Democrat in the Senate This label comes from GovTrack, a nonpartisan group that tracks bills in Congress. They did rank Harris as the "most liberal compared to All Senators," in 2019. They based that on the low share of bipartisan bills she cosponsored.  But the group says this is only one way to measure a senator's politics, and they noted Harris has backed away from some causes such as the 'Abolish ICE' movement. She has also moved away from a fully government-run health care system. On Harris' record as San Francisco District Attorney  Pence claimed that after Harris left her job as San Francisco DA, that African-Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug crimes than whites and Latinos. We are taking a look at that; at this point, PolitiFact doesn't have enough research to say whether that's true or not. But what we do know is that historically, California has disproportionately incarcerated people of color, going back long before Harris was in office. On Pence having a fly in his hair for a few minutes during the debate Unfortunately, I can't take credit for that fact check, but yes, it made its cameo for exactly 2 minutes and 3 seconds, creating quite a buzz on social media! Here is a look at all of PolitiFact's fact checks from the vice presidential debate.

By Chris Nichols If Your Time Is Short: In California, anyone can observe election proceedings as long as they do not interfere with the process or intimidate voters. Observers can ask questions of poll workers, but they cannot harass, attempt to coerce or ask personal questions of voters. Any campaigning must take place at least 100 feet from the entrance to a polling place or vote center. President Donald Trump this week called on his supporters to monitor voting locations during the election. “I am urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully,” Trump said at Tuesday’s presidential debate with Joe Biden in Cleveland. “Because that’s what has to happen. I am urging them to do it.”  The next day, Sacramento County’s registrar of voters said her office received several calls from people who expressed concern about possible voter intimidation at the polls.  The same day, a coalition of 11 governors, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, released a joint statement responding to “recent threats to the democratic process and reports of efforts to circumvent the election results.”  Last week, Trump refused to say he would encourage a peaceful transition of power should he lose the election.  The joint statement went on to say, “Any efforts to throw out ballots or refuse a peaceful transfer of power are nothing less than an assault on American democracy. There is absolutely no excuse for promoting the intimidation or harassment of voters.”  Given the politically-charged 2020 election year, we wanted to know what activities are and are not allowed at the polls in California.  What Rights Do Californians Have To Watch What Happens At Voting Sites?  In California and across the country, people have the right to observe what happens at all voting locations and ask questions — as long as they don’t interfere with voting.   Late last month, the California Secretary of State’s Office sent a memo to all county election officials outlining the public’s observation rights and responsibilities. Those rights include:  Observing pre-Election Day activities such as voting equipment preparation and testing and vote-by-mail processing Watching the proceedings at polling locations, including opening and closing procedures Obtaining information from the posted voter list at the polling site and taking notes “We are a completely open, public process. Which means observers, whether you’re part of a group or not, you can come and watch any part of the process,” explained Sacramento County Registrar of Voters Courtney Bailey-Kanelos.  What Are You Not Allowed To Do At A Voting Site?  With those rights come responsibilities. Most notably, poll watchers can’t “interfere with the conduct of the election,” as outlined in the Secretary of State’s memo, which cites the California Election Code.  The onsite election officials are given the authority to determine whether a person is interfering, such as by intimidating voters.  Kanelos offered some examples: “You cannot intimidate, harass or ask voters any personal questions and if you do then you will be asked to leave,” Kanelos said. “Voter intimidation can be anything from an argument, it could be an attempt of coercion, it could be an attempt of influence. It could just be aggressive behavior.”  Poll watchers also can’t physically handle any voting materials or equipment without the express permission of the onsite elections official, according to the elections code.  Additionally, observers can’t “display any campaign material or wear campaign badges, buttons or apparel” inside the voting location, the code says.   What About Campaigning At Or Near A Voting Site?  Any campaigning must take place at least 100 feet from the entrance to a polling place or vote center. That includes campaigning for a candidate or anything else on the ballot such as a voter initiative.  Kanelos said campaign supporters cannot block people from entering a voting site, even if they are more than 100 feet away. She encouraged people to call their local election office if they’re blocked from entering or experience any intimidation.  Exit polling of voters is permitted, as long as it is conducted at least 25 feet from the entrance to the polling place. Kanelos said election officials partner with local law enforcement as needed.  “If something comes up, then we definitely will let the local authorities know if there’s some sort of altercation or someone does need to step in,” she said. “They’re aware in case they have to be deployed. But they are not to be deployed unless we call or there’s an emergency.”  Finally, Kanelos said the number of observers allowed in Sacramento County’s voting areas will be more limited this year to comply with COVID-19 precautions.   Source List   Courtney Bailey-Kanelos, Sacramento County Registrar of Voters, video interview Oct. 1, 2020 California Secretary of State’s Office, General Election: Election Observations Rights and Responsibilities, Sept. 28, 2020 Gov. Gavin News, Governors Release Joint Statement on Threats to American Democracy, Sept. 30, 2020 National Conference of State Legislatures, Policies for Election Observers, Oct. 12, 2016 The New York Times, Trump Won’t Commit to ‘Peaceful’ Post-Election Transfer of Power, Sept. 23, 2020

By Chris NicholsElection and voting misinformation continues to spread online. Recently social media posts alleging that more than 1,000 California ballots were found in a dumpster spread rapidly last week. To get to the bottom of this, CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols joined host Steve Milne for “Can You Handle The Truth?”, a weekly segment on misinformation and fact-checking. On the truth behind a photo depicting ballots in a Sonoma County dumpster These photos started spreading rapidly last week on Facebook and conservative websites, showing what allegedly were unopened vote-by-mail ballots from the 2020 election. The posts said the ballots were found in a dumpster at a county landfill. Sonoma County election officials pushed back against this pretty quickly. They took to social media and asked users to help stop the spread of this false information. The County’s Registrar of Voters Deva Proto explained what was found at the landfill, calling them “old elections materials that were taken to be recycled per the California elections code. All the materials had nothing to do with the current election.” Proto said these materials were from 2018 and 2019. They included old voter information guides, ballot envelopes, test ballots, unused ballots, and possibly some voted ballots. But she said those do not include a person’s name, and there’s no way to tie a ballot back to an individual once it’s been discarded. PolitiFact rated the claims in the Facebook posts as False. On what people can do when they see questionable photos and content on social media Proto urged people to contact their local election officials if they have questions or see something strange. “Check and see if it’s been fact-checked,” Proto said. “And, if you’re unsure, check it yourself. Most of the information we got about the false posts was people speculating.” On the “No on Prop 15” campaign and its claims on how this proposition would increase taxes on solar power in the state Prop 15 would raise property taxes on large commercial and industrial properties. And the No campaign says it would also be “a massive property tax increase on solar in California.” Nichols spoke with UC Davis tax law professor Darien Shanske who said that the No on Prop 15 campaign’s statements are deceptive for two reasons. “First, it’s misleading because the claim suggests it applies to residential solar, which it clearly does not,” Shanske said. Second, Shanske said California approved a new law this year that protects the commercial solar industry from any new property tax increases should Prop.15 pass. Opponents say that the new law will be challenged in the courts, but even the solar industry says it’s confident that Prop 15 won’t lead to higher taxes for its industry. PolitiFact California rated the No on Prop. 15 claim as False. On future election season fact-checking Next Wednesday, on Oct.7, Nichols will be fact-checking the debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate California Sen. Kamala Harris. He will be focused on statements that Harris makes about her record in California.

By Chris Nichols If Your Time Is Short: Opponents of Proposition 15 claimed it would “impose massive property tax increases” on solar in California if voters approve it in November.   The solar industry and independent tax experts say that’s wrong. That’s because a new state law protects commercial solar projects from property tax increases through 2024 should the measure win.  Residential solar is already exempt. While the solar industry and tax experts believe the state law is legally sound, the California Assessors’ Association disagrees. Would California’s Proposition 15 really impose “massive property tax increases” on solar projects and drive up electricity costs?  Tax and solar industry experts don’t think so.  But those are the allegations made by the No on Prop 15 campaign in radio and social media ads, which ask voters to reject the measure this November.  “Prop 15 will impose massive property tax increases on California’s solar power facilities, meaning Prop 15 will drive up the cost of electricity for consumers like us,” a narrator said in the radio spot that aired on KFBK in Sacramento in mid-September.  The campaign’s Facebook ad made a nearly identical claim: “Prop 15 will impose massive property tax increases on Solar in California.” It was flagged as part of the social media platform’s effort to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California’s partnership with Facebook.) The Yes on 15 campaign also disputes the claims. Given the importance of solar energy in California and the fast-approaching election, we decided to shine a light on the facts.  Background On Proposition 15 If approved, Proposition 15 would be a major change to California’s historic property tax law Proposition 13, which voters passed in 1978.  Specifically, the new measure would require commercial and industrial real estate worth more than $3 million to pay property tax based on current market value. Right now, owners pay a much lower tax based on the original purchase price.  Residential properties would be exempt from the changes.  The measure would generate billions of dollars per year to fund public schools, community colleges and local governments statewide. How Would Proposition 15 Affect Solar?  Tax and solar industry experts said there was some initial concern that Proposition 15 could affect an existing tax exclusion for commercial solar projects. They said those worries faded this summer. Here’s how that exclusion works: Land under solar developments is still taxed, but the value of the solar arrays doesn’t add to the taxable value. California voters approved that benefit by passing Proposition 7 in 1980 to help ensure the growth of the solar industry.  The Legislature has extended that benefit several times, most recently through 2024, but industry officials worried Proposition 15 might end it much earlier.  So at the urging of the solar industry, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 364 at the end of August and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it early this month. The law specifically ensures commercial solar projects retain this exclusion through 2024 whether or not Proposition 15 passes.  Solar industry and tax experts say the new law protects solar projects, despite concerns raised by the California Assessors’ Association that the law is unconstitutional.  A ‘Completely Misleading And Incorrect Allegation’  Ed Smeloff works with the Vote Solar Action Fund, which is the political arm of Vote Solar, a group that works to expand access to solar nationwide and pushed for SB 364.  He described the claim that Proposition 15 would impose “massive tax increases” on solar in California as a “completely misleading and incorrect allegation.”  “The No on Proposition 15 campaign is completely deceptive in its statements about solar power,” Smelnoff said. “There is nothing in Proposition 15, when it's combined with state legislation, that would undermine the future development of solar power.” Rick Umoff, California senior director and counsel at the Solar Energy Industries Association, or SEIA, added in a written statement that SB 364 had “remedied” his group’s early concern over Proposition 15 “by preserving the current tax treatment for solar projects.”   SEIA is a national trade association of more than 1,000 member companies and partners, according to its website.   An Unconstitutional Law?  In a letter on Sept. 9, Don Gaekle, president of the California Assessors’ Association urged Newsom to veto SB 364, saying the Legislature had overstepped its authority. He added that the bill was “contrary to the California Constitution and sets a bad precedent for future erosions of the property tax base through legislative actions not envisioned by the Constitution.”    Specifically, Gaekle pointed to the law’s reclassification of commercial solar projects from real property to personal property to avoid any possible property tax hike under Proposition 15. He said only voters can approve such an exclusion.  San Luis Obispo County Assessor Tom Bordonaro said if Proposition 15 passes, he would be presented with conflicting messages on whether to reassess commercial solar projects. He said he believes he would eventually “be forced to reassess” them. “The courts are going to have to sort it out,” added Bordonaro, a former state senator and past president of CAA.  Michael Bustamante, a spokesperson for the No on 15 campaign, pointed to the CAA arguments to justify the campaign’s claims about “massive property taxes” on solar, but he declined to say whether the campaign would sue to overturn the new state law.  In August, Matt Klink, another spokesperson for the No on 15 campaign, told Capital & Main that SB 364 “won’t provide relief to the clean energy sector, and it will be immediately challenged in court and overturned. The only way to truly protect the solar industry is by defeating Prop. 15 in November.” The campaign aired and published its ads nearly a week after Newsom signed the new law and nearly a month after the Legislature passed the bill.   Asked about the CAA’s legal concerns, Umoff of the solar trade association, added in a statement: “We are aware of their arguments and disagree. Senate Bill 364 is constitutional.” Tax Experts Weigh In Darien Shanske, a UC Davis law professor who specializes in taxation, wrote in an email that the No on Prop 15 claims about a massive tax hike on solar are “misleading.” He added that the argument that SB 364 is unconstitutional “is not a trivial argument as it turns out, but I would characterize (that argument) as more likely than not to fail.” Shanske added that the campaign ads give the impression that even residential solar projects could be subject to tax increases. “That is clearly not permitted by Prop 15,” he wrote. He added that perhaps there’s an argument to be made that starting in 2025 solar projects would pay more after the state’s commercial solar property tax exemption ends. But, as others including Smelnoff noted, that exemption was going to end in 2024 regardless of Proposition 15.  “Though puffery is allowed in politics, the idea that the increase would be ‘massive’ and ultimately much affect the costs of the average consumer strikes me as quite far-fetched,” Shanske wrote.   Kirk Stark, a professor of tax law and policy at UCLA, added in email that it’s simply “not accurate” to say Proposition 15 will lead to a “massive property tax increase” for solar in California.  Last month, Stark told Capital & Main that he’s skeptical that SB 364 would be ruled unconstitutional. “Prop. 15 itself authorizes the legislature to decide how to implement it,” he said, “and it’s certainly possible that courts would defer to lawmakers on what is and is not subject” to the proposed law. Response From Yes On 15 Campaign Asked about their opponents’ claims, a spokesperson for the Yes On 15 campaign said “these false ads should be taken down immediately." "The corporate-backed opponents of Prop. 15 will say whatever it takes to keep their tax loopholes, but this is crossing the line,” Alex Stack said in a written statement. “Not only are they blatantly lying to voters just weeks before ballots drop, but they are trying to take advantage of Californians' financial struggles at a time when so many are hurting financially right now.” Our Ruling Opponents of Prop. 15 claimed the measure “will impose massive property tax increases on Solar in California.”  But the solar industry and tax experts reject that idea. That’s because California approved SB 364 this summer, protecting commercial solar projects from a property tax increase through 2024 should the measure win. A property tax exclusion unrelated to Proposition 15 is set to expire in January 2025.  Not everyone agrees the new state law is on solid legal ground. The California Assessors’ Association says it is unconstitutional. And the No on Proposition 15 campaign says a court could overturn it.  Still, two independent tax experts and solar officials reviewed those legal concerns and determined it’s unlikely a court would throw out the new law. In the end, we found the claims by the No on Prop. 15 campaign are misleading and unfounded.  We rate them False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Email us at politifactca@capradio.org with feedback or contact us on Twitter or Facebook. Source List No on Prop 15, Facebook ad and radio ad, accessed September 2020 California Senate Bill 364, accessed September 2020 Ed Smeloff, senior director, Vote Solar Action Fund, video interview Sept. 24, 2020 Darien Shanske, UC Davis tax law professor, email exchange, Sept. 23, 2020 Kirk Stark, UCLA tax law professor, video interview Sept. 22, 2020 Tom Bordonaro, San Luis Obispo County assessor and past president of the California Assessors’ Association, video interview Sept. 24, 2020 Michale Bustamante, No on 15 spokesperson, phone interview, Sept. 24, 2020 Alex Stack, Yes on 15 spokesperson, phone interview, Sept. 23, 2020 Don Gaekle, president, California Assessors’ Association, SB 364 veto request letter, Sept. 9, 2020 and AB 105 Oppose letter, June 25, 2020 Rick Umoff, California senior director and counsel, Solar Energy Industries Association, written statements Sept. 23 and 24, 2020 and SB 364 support letter, June 23, 2020 Ballotopedia, California Proposition 7, accessed September 2020 CapRadio, California’s Proposition 15 Would Raise Taxes On Businesses While Supporting Schools, Local Governments, Sept. 15, 2020 Capital & Main, California’s Proposition 15 Has Nothing to Do With Clean Energy, Aug. 13, 2020

By Chris NicholsMisinformation is continuing to spread on social media about the wildfires in California, Oregon and Washington.  To talk about that, CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols joins us for “Can You Handle The Truth?” a weekly conversation about his latest fact checks. On false claims related to the start of West Coast wildfires PolitiFact is finding even more rumors about the start of these fires. Last week, we reported that the FBI in Portland had debunked claims that Antifa was starting wildfires on the West Coast. The FBI even asked people to stop sharing misinformation on social media because these false reports were taking valuable time away from agencies fighting the fires.  This week, we found a new set of viral posts that blame a California man for lighting more than 30 fires this year. They show a mug shot of the man and call him “Mr. Climate Change.” That’s an effort to push back against what scientists agree is the contributing role climate change plays in making these fires worse. The problem with these posts is the man pictured has been incarcerated for the past two years, at a mental health facility for inmates in Stockton.  He was convicted of starting nine fires in Southern California two years ago, but he’s played no role in the fires this year. And so PolitiFact rated these claims False.  On a misleading map of the wildfires shared by actor James Woods The actor James Woods and many other people shared a map that they suggested disproves claims that the fires are connected to climate change. The map shows fires stopping at the border with Canada.  Woods even tweeted "Hey, Governor Newsom, why does ‘climate change’ stop abruptly at the Canadian border?"  It turns out this map only uses U.S. fire data. And for the record, there have been wildfires in Canada this summer. PolitiFact also rated these claims False.  On a claim on Facebook about President Trump and wildfire aid to California In August we fact-checked a widely shared Facebook post that alleged the president had denied fire aid to California but then helped Russia fight wildfires in Siberia. We rated that False when it popped up, but it is circulating again. Some of these really outlandish claims seem to have nine lives and just appear over and over again.  Just to recap: President Trump has repeatedly threatened to withhold federal fire assistance from California and he made a similar threat again last month. But he has always approved that aid. On Russia, it is true that Trump said last year that he offered Russia help with its fires in Siberia. We found no evidence that he actually followed through.  On how PolitiFact fact-checks misinformation on Facebook and other social media platforms It’s no secret that the posts and information on Facebook, whether fact or fiction, can influence what people believe and how they act. We want to hold Facebook users accountable to the truth, especially during this election season. That’s why CapRadio’s PolitiFact California is focusing on Facebook to fact-check false news and misinformation, This includes posts ‘on the Facebook and Instagram platforms.’ Facebook does not decide what CapRadio should fact check, nor does it have a role in the ratings we select.

By Chris NicholsEvery Thursday CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols speaks with host Steve Milnes for “Can You Handle The Truth?” a weekly conversation about his latest fact checks and reporting on misinformation.  This week PolitiFact California looked at a confusing Postal Service postcard, wildfires and President Trump’s visit to California.  On a postcard that was mailed out nationwide by the Postal Service but led to some confusion for voters The card landed in mailboxes last week. And it advises people to “plan ahead” if they want to vote by mail — which is definitely good advice. But it also asks voters to request their mail-in ballot 15 days before Election Day. This ‘caused confusion’ because a new state law in California already requires counties to automatically send out mail-in ballots.  So, if you’re a registered voter and you’ve participated in recent elections, you don’t need to make any request, at all.  Elections officials in Sacramento and Yolo counties even released statements last week telling voters that the advice from the Postal Service — about requesting a ballot — just doesn’t apply to most voters here in California.  On misinformation on social media about the cause of the wildfires both here and in Oregon and Washington My colleagues at PolitiFact in D.C. checked this out. And they found a host of false social media claims, all of which blamed Antifa for intentionally starting these fires especially up in Oregon. Antifa is a loose and broad coalition of left-wing activists. They’ve been a big part of the racial justice demonstrations in Portland this summer. But there is no evidence that Antifa started any of the fires on the West Coast. Both fire and law enforcement officials — including Portland’s FBI office — have all debunked these rumors.  It’s important to note what the FBI wrote on Twitter this weekend:  “Conspiracy theories and misinformation take valuable resources away from local fire and police agencies working around the clock to bring these fires under control.” They went on to say,  “Please help our entire community by only sharing validated information from official sources.”  On President Trump during his visit to Sacramento this week I focused on what was really a striking exchange the president had with California Secretary for Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot. And Crowfoot urged the president to acknowledge the role of climate change in making the fires worse.  "But I think we want to work with you to really recognize the changing climate and what it means to our forests and actually work together with that science. That science is going to be key. Because if we ignore that science and sort of put our head in the sand and think it’s all about vegetation management, we’re not going to succeed together protecting Californians,” Crowfoot said.  "Ok, it’ll start getting cooler, you just watch,” Trump replied.  "I wish science agreed with you,” Crowfoot added.  “I don’t think science knows, actually,” Trump responded. Starting with Trump’s claim that it’s going to get “cooler,” climate scientists say there is just no evidence to support that. The consensus among them is that the climate is warming, that climate change is a key factor in making fires worse and that we should expect more days of extreme heat and fire danger.  On President Trump's claims that forest management is the way to prevent wildfires The president has over and over talked about clearing trees and even raking leaves in California and he did that again in Sacramento. And he’s not wrong that forest management is an important part of preventing these massive fires. California officials agree on that.  But experts say it’s just one element. The other big factors are things like urban sprawl, and climate change. Finally, while both the state and federal governments are responsible for managing the forests, it’s the federal government that owns nearly 60% of those forests in California. That’s a point that the president does not mention when he talks about forest management.

By Steve Milne Every Wednesday afternoon CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols joins host Steve Milne for “Can You Handle The Truth?” a weekly conversation about his latest fact checks and reporting on misinformation. Click play above to hear the entire conversation, and see some highlights of their conversation below. Interview Highlights On misinformation around voting by mail Even with all the plans for mail-in voting, Californians can go to the polls in-person this fall, if they choose to. And recently we saw some really questionable claims pop up on social media about this.  On Instagram, posts said Californians would be turned away from the polls on Election Day unless they made a change in their voting preference and marked “No to mail in voting.”  We spoke with Sam Mahood of the California Secretary of State’s Office, who described this as simply false.  "There was a lie or inaccuracy in just about every sentence of that post," Mahood said. "Let’s be clear, you do not have to change anything with your voter registration in order to participate in-person in this election.”  Because it was so extreme and reckless, we gave it our most severe rating: Pants On Fire.  On the laws that make voting more than once a crime in California  We looked into this after President Donald Trump encouraged people in North Carolina to vote by mail and in-person last week. We found that under California law, voting twice is a felony and it’s punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Under federal law, you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years. So, really the message on this one is: Have a plan, go out and vote in this election, but do it just once. On misinformation surrounding a proposed law that is awaiting the governor’s signature by California state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco For months now, there’s really been an onslaught of false and distorted claims about Senate Bill 145.  One of the most outrageous ones is that the bill would “legalize pedophilia” in California. And that’s just not the case. The bill would give judges additional discretion on who gets placed on the sex offender registry for life.  Under current law, a judge decides whether to place young adults on that list after they are convicted of statutory rape, meaning non-forcible intercourse, involving a heterosexual sex act. This bill would give a judge that same discretion in cases involving certain sex acts mainly affecting ‘LGBTQ young adults’ who are convicted of statutory rape. “It’s irrational, it’s discriminatory," Wiener said. "It absolutely has to change and we’re committed to doing what it takes to pass this important civil rights legislation.” The claim also earned our worst rating, Pants On Fire.  This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

By Chris Nichols If Your Time Is Short Sen. Kamala Harris has repeatedly claimed she “took on the big banks” as California attorney general following the foreclosure crisis. We found she played a central role in reaching the $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement to provide relief to homeowners.  Harris also reached a separate $12 billion California agreement. Additionally, Harris pushed for the California Homeowner Bill of Rights in 2012, considered the nation’s strongest foreclosure protection law at the time. Critics, however, contend that Harris was not aggressive enough in prosecuting bank executives. Also, some critics say the amount of relief was inadequate and failed to keep many Californians in their homes. During her speech accepting the nomination to be Joe Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris didn’t spend much time — at all — detailing her record as a California prosecutor.  Harris did, however, repeat a line during her Democratic National Convention address that’s become standard in her stump speeches both in the Golden State and now on the national stage: “I took on the biggest banks,” Harris said at the convention last week.  She was referring, in part, to the deal she struck with some of the nation’s largest financial institutions in 2012 as California attorney general to provide relief for homeowners facing foreclosure during the subprime mortgage crisis. Harris has repeated this claim at high-profile points throughout her career: While running for U.S. Senate in 2016, during her January 2019 speech kicking off her own presidential bid before a crowd of thousands in Oakland and then two months later on Jimmy Kimmel Live!: “I took on the five big banks of the United States when we were fighting for the homeowners of California, and by extension the nation, around the foreclosure crisis and when they were basically stealing from homeowners around these predatory mortgage practices.”  Given the significance of this turbulent period, we wanted to know more about Harris’ contention that she tackled these problems head on. What, exactly, was her role as attorney general “taking on the big banks,” how successful was she and did she go far enough?   Background On California’s Foreclosure Crisis In California and across the nation, the foreclosure crisis was devastating. Nearly 10 million homeowners lost their homes to foreclosure sales between 2006 and 2014, according to research by Marketplace.  As home values plummeted, mortgage payments ballooned, often due to predatory lending practices. Homeowners found themselves “under water,” owing hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the value of their homes.  Then, as the wider economy collapsed, many lost work and the ability to stay in their homes. Some took a loss through short sales, others simply abandoned their homes, creating ghost towns in new suburban tract neighborhoods. Foreclosure relief funds were still years away. The ripple effects of the mortgage crisis and ensuing Great Recession are still felt. Millions who lost their homes never returned to homeownership, denying families the chance to build wealth for future generations.  How Did Kamala Harris ‘Take On The Big Banks’? Through interviews with housing policy experts and consumer advocates, and reviewing news articles and documents over the past decade, we found Harris did play a central role in securing billions of dollars in relief funds and new protections for California homeowners facing foreclosure. She’s been widely praised for these achievements. We also found, however, that much of the mortgage relief money was spent on efforts that did not keep Californians in their homes. Additionally, consumer advocates told us not enough was done to ensure low-income households and communities of color received the help they needed.  Finally, critics say Harris should have done more to prosecute the financial industry executives many blame for starting the crisis. Harris’ campaign spokesperson did not respond to requests to discuss this story. Harris’ Role In The National Mortgage Settlement  In February 2012, Harris and 48 other state attorneys general reached the National Mortgage Settlement. The $25 billion deal required the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers — Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America and Ally/GMAC — to provide mortgage assistance for homeowners facing foreclosure.  During negotiations, consumer advocates such as Kevin Stein worried Harris would take an initial and lower offer from the banks. Only California and New York had yet to sign on.  The groups saw the amount on the table, described later by Harris as between $2 billion and $4 billion for California, as inadequate.  Despite pressure from other states and the White House to settle, Harris famously walked away, a decision she speaks about frequently and writes about in her book The Truths We Hold.  When she returned to the table months later, Harris helped secure the $25 billion national settlement along with a separate $12 billion deal called the California Agreement.  Aid delivered under the California deal would eventually grow to $18 billion. Harris often describes the total as $20 billion in relief for California, which includes nearly $2 billion from the national deal. She described securing the assistance as “a tremendous victory for the people of California.”   SOURCE: California Attorney General’s Office, California Monitor report, By the Numbers: Mortgage Relief Across California, Sept. 24, 2013   The negotiations won Harris praise from the likes of Massachusetts. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who appeared in a campaign ad in 2016 in which she endorsed Harris for U.S. Senate and called her “fearless.”  “As the fraud was being uncovered, many of the AGs were yelling ‘Settle, settle, settle.’ They just wanted to get their hands on the money. … [Harris] was the one who said ‘No, we have to do better,’” Warren told the Los Angeles Times in 2016.  “She stood firm. She got more for the state,” added Stein, deputy director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, which works to ensure banks invest in communities of color and low-income communities in an equitable manner.  The California Agreement required the three largest mortgage companies — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo — to provide mortgage relief for California homeowners under more stringent requirements than the national deal.  ‘The Banks Are Running The Government’ While the agreements Harris reached with the banks promised more help for California homeowners, some economists and advocates for borrowers said they fell far short of what was needed both in the state and nationally given the scale of the crisis.  They also said too much of the aid came in the form of short sales and forgiveness of second mortgages, instead first mortgage reductions, the kind most likely to keep a borrower in their home.  “It just shows you that the banks are running the government,” Bruce Marks, founder of Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, a major housing counseling group, told the Los Angeles Times in 2013. “There’s virtually no benefit to borrowers, and yet you give the banks credit for short sales and getting second liens wiped out — something they were going to have to do anyway.” Under the California Agreement, approximately 84,000 California families received more than $9.2 billion in first- and second-mortgage principal reduction, according to a September 2013 analysis conducted for the attorney general’s office on how the relief funds were spent. A slightly larger total, $9.24 billion, was spent on short sales, with the report noting: “The reality is that not every family can keep its home.” That’s because many had lost jobs and simply needed to move on from their massive debt, said Carolina Reid, a faculty research advisor at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.  “They were not going to stay in that home. So, a short sale is better than an outright foreclosure,” added Reid, who was part of the team that helped review bank performance for the attorney general’s office following the California Agreement.  Others say the deals reached by Harris and other attorneys general were woefully insufficient. Christopher Thornberg, founding partner of Beacon Economics, a research and consulting firm in Los Angeles, told Stateline in 2013 that California's share of relief aid was “chump change” in a state that has a $1.5 trillion economy. The settlement, he added, simply allowed politicians “to thump their chest and rail against the big evil banks.” Relief Didn’t Reach Those Hardest Hit By The Foreclosure Crisis Housing and consumer experts say predatory lending practices and the resulting foreclosure crisis disproportionately hit communities of color and low-income households first and the hardest.  While they did not single-out Harris, who was elected attorney general in 2010 as the crisis was well underway, they said the assistance she helped secure came too late for many. “By the time policy makers were thinking about homeowner relief and talking about the settlement, a significant share of Black and Latinx households had already lost their homes to foreclosure. That’s because they were the first impacted,” Reid said. Stein, the consumer advocate, added there wasn’t much data to track efforts to help these communities. “The neighborhoods that needed it most, it wasn’t clear that they were getting relief,” he said.   Governments didn’t start paying attention to the crisis, Reid added, “until they saw the foreclosure crisis extend to white households.” “So, absolutely, we could have done so much more to ensure that communities of color, lower-income households wouldn’t have been so badly impacted by the foreclosure crisis,” she said.  Harris’ Role In Passing The California Homeowner Bill of Rights Along with helping secure the financial settlements, Harris is credited with helping push through the California Homeowner Bill of Rights in 2012.  Stein said the protections in the bill set a national model and, at the time, served as “the strongest foreclosure prevention law in the country.” It provided homeowners in distress with a single point of contact at a bank, reducing the stress and duplication of working with multiple representatives. The bill also required that homeowners receive fair consideration for a loan modification and allowed them to respond if denied.  Finally, and most importantly, Stein said the bill allowed homeowners to sue banks if their rights under the bill were violated.  “That was really one of the first, if not the first time, you had clear consequences for banks’ malfeasance and misconduct,” Stein added, noting some foreclosures were stopped as a result. “We think it served a really important deterrent value. Banks then kind of took notice and realized that they needed to comply with the Homeowner Bill of Rights or else they would get sued.”  Stein said Harris fully backed the bill after it had twice failed in the Legislature. It was signed into law by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in July 2012 and went into effect Jan. 1, 2013.  Harris “became the face of the Homeowner Bill of Rights and helped push it through,” he said. Why Didn’t Harris Go After Bank Executives?  Looking back at the mortgage crisis, some have raised questions about why Harris didn’t go after bank executives more aggressively. They point to a 2012 investigation by the attorney general’s office that found OneWest Bank took part in “widespread misconduct” when foreclosing homes, as reported by the Intercept. The bank was headed at the time by now Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who disputed the findings. Last year, Ian Sams, a campaign spokesman for Harris told CNBC the following:  “There was no question One West conducted predatory lending, and Senator Harris believes they should be punished. Unfortunately, the law was squarely on their side and they were shielded from state subpoenas because they’re a federal bank,” Sams wrote in an email. Despite that challenge, CNBC noted Harris’ office still could have filed a civil enforcement action against the bank, but chose not to.   Looking ahead, advocates such as Stein say they’re worried another housing crisis is coming given the huge loss of jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Government leaders, from Harris to President Donald Trump, will again play pivotal roles in deciding what kind of relief to secure, and how that assistance reaches those most in need.  PolitiFact California is fact-checking the claims Harris makes about her record in the state while she campaigns as Biden’s VP pick. Suggest a fact check at politifactca@capradio.org, or contact us on Twitter or Facebook. Related What Kept Kamala Harris So ‘Cautious’ As California’s Attorney General? Kamala Harris: Criminal justice reformer, or defender of the status quo? The record is mixed Kamala Harris Is Biden's VP Pick. Here's A Closer Look At Her Record In California. Harris did not call Biden a racist during her busing attack Did Kamala Harris flip-flop on independent probes of police shootings? Source List Kamala Harris, Democratic National Convention speech, Aug. 19, 2020 Kamala Harris, appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, March 20, 2019 Kamala Harris, presidential campaign kick-off speech, January 27, 2019 Kamala Harris for U.S. Senate, “Fearless” campaign ad, May 2016  Kevin Stein, deputy director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, video interview Aug. 20, 2020 Carolina Reid, faculty research advisor, UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, video interview Aug. 24, 2020 Maeve Elise Brown, executive director, Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, email interview, Aug. 22, 2020 California Attorney General’s Office, California Monitor report, By the Numbers: Mortgage Relief Across California, Sept. 24, 2013 California  Attorney General’s Office, California Homeowner Bill of Rights Signed into Law, July 11, 2012 National Mortgage Servicing Settlements, website, accessed August 2020 Marketplace, Divided Decade: How the financial crisis changed housing, Dec. 17, 2018 Los Angeles Times, Mortgage relief didn’t help many keep their homes, critics say, Sept. 25, 2013 CNBC, Kamala Harris’ complicated history with Wall Street will come under scrutiny in the 2020 race, Jan. 26, 2019 The Intercept_, Treasury Nominee Steve Mnuchin’s Bank Accused of “Widespread Misconduct” In Leaked Memo, Jan. 3, 2017 Stateline, States Used Mortgage Settlement Money to Balance Budgets, Oct. 8, 2013 Los Angeles Times, $25-billion foreclosure settlement was a victory for Kamala Harris in California, but it wasn’t perfect, Oct. 16, 2016

By Chris Nichols If Your Time Is Short As California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris was labeled “cautious” and “deliberate” on some criminal justice reform issues.  Some legal experts say Harris, in her role as AG, was legally and ethically constrained and could not set the state’s policy priorities. Others say Harris had the power to make more change but chose not to. California Sen. Kamala Harris is known for taking bold stands on criminal justice reform in Congress and has vowed to do the same as Joe Biden’s running mate.  But that was not always the case. As the California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney before that, Harris was often labeled in news articles and op-eds as “deliberate” and even “cautious to a fault” on reform issues. During her time as AG, Harris refused to take public positions on state ballot measures to decriminalize marijuana, reduce criminal sentences and abolish the death penalty, which Harris has long said she personally opposes. She also stayed silent on Assembly Bill 86, which would have required the attorney general’s office to appoint a special prosecutor to examine fatal shootings by the police. Harris explained in an MSNBC interview last year that her resistance stemmed from her own fight as San Francisco’s top prosecutor to exercise discretion over an investigation into the shooting death of a police officer. In what’s believed to be the first time she’s publicly acknowledged her shift in position, she said in the same May 2019 interview that police shootings should undergo independent investigations rather than having local district attorneys handle them. During her three years in the U.S. Senate, Harris has shifted on other positions, too. She now favors legalizing marijuana nationwide, ending cash bail and placing a moratorium on the federal death penalty. Critics say Harris should have taken these positions long ago and is only doing so now because it’s “trendy,” as one criminal justice advocate wrote in a widely-shared New York Times op-ed last year. And some legal experts say there was nothing that blocked her from speaking out as an elected prosecutor.  However, other experts say it is more complicated. They say Harris chipped away at inequities in the criminal justice system but was constrained in how much she could do or say. Mary-Beth Moylan, associate dean at McGeorge Law School in Sacramento, said the overly cautious label is not entirely fair. In her role as AG, Harris was not in charge of setting California’s priorities.  “To me, a number of the positions that I think she’s been able to take as U.S. Senator were ones that I don’t think she could have or should have taken as attorney general,” Moylan said, citing legal and ethical barriers.  As AG, Harris represented the state and was bound to defend existing laws and policy, Moylan added. One example is the state’s death penalty law, which Harris defended in court. “So, there’s an attorney-client relationship there,” she said. “And there’s also a clear distinction in the California constitution that the governor sets the state policy. So the attorney general needs to be subordinate in terms of making policy statements to the governor. And then also needs to be the lawyer for the governor and the other constitutional officers and so can’t get kind of out ahead of or sideways to their policies.”  Harris’ supporters point to several achievements as a prosecutor as evidence she worked to improve the criminal justice system. They include: The Back On Track program in 2005, which was designed to help nonviolent, first-time drug offenders transition back to their communities and prevent recidivism. Her 2015 launch of Open Justice, a criminal-justice open-data initiative that provides information on deaths in police custody, including those that occur during arrests, as well as arrest rates by race and ethnicity. It also provides data on officers who are killed or assaulted on the job. Her creation of the first statewide implicit bias training for law enforcement personnel in 2015. It called for a focus on six areas of policing that "emphasize respect, listening, neutrality and trust, while recognizing and addressing implicit biases that can be barriers to these approaches," according to a news release at the time from the AG’s office. Still, other legal experts say Harris had the power to make more change as AG, but failed to use it.   Irene Joe, a UC Davis law professor who has tracked Harris’ career, says she could have refused to defend the death penalty law and voiced stronger opinions. “As the attorney general, as a prosecutor, you are permitted to take whatever steps,” are necessary, Joe said. “We rely on their discretion. So, she certainly could have taken a step to not support that.”  Harris had promised voters she would uphold California’s death penalty law during her run for AG. Gabriel Chin, also a UC Davis law professor, added in an email that “DAs and AGs routinely state their opinions and lobby on policy proposals pending before legislatures and the voters. As experts in the criminal justice system, it would make no sense for them not to propose legislation and comment on it.” Lateefah Simon is a civil rights activist who worked for Harris when she was San Francisco’s DA. Simon said Harris could not overturn all the wrongs of the criminal justice system at once.  “She was trying to undo slowly a system that had been burdening communities of color for generations,” Simon said on CapRadio’s Insight program this week.  Experts also acknowledged that law enforcement’s conservative culture may have contributed to Harris’ reticence.   “It is very common for prosecutors to do everything they can to maintain good relations with law enforcement agencies, because they depend on working closely with them to investigate cases and make arrests,” Chin wrote.  Related:  Kamala Harris: Criminal justice reformer, or defender of the status quo? The record is mixed Kamala Harris Is Biden's VP Pick. Here's A Closer Look At Her Record In California. Harris did not call Biden a racist during her busing attack Did Kamala Harris flip-flop on independent probes of police shootings? Source List Mary-Beth Moylan, associate dean, McGeorge Law School, video interview Aug. 12, 2020 Irene Joe, UC Davis law professor, video interview Aug. 12, 2020 Lateefah Simon, civil rights activist, CapRadio Insight interview Aug. 12, 2020 Gabriel Chin, UC Davis law professor, email interview Aug. 12, 2020 PolitiFact California, Kamala Harris: Criminal justice reformer, or defender of the status quo? The record is mixed, Jan. 29, 2020 CapRadio, Kamala Harris Is Biden's VP Pick. Here's A Closer Look At Her Record In California., Aug. 11, 2020 PolitiFact California, Did Kamala Harris flip-flop on independent probes of police shootings?, May 23, 2020 Sacramento Bee, Kamala Harris picks her fights as criminal justice crusader, May 1, 2016 Lara Bazelon, op-ed in The New York Times, "Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor.’" Jan. 17, 2019 Courthouse News Service, Harris Vows to End Death Penalty, Money Bail as President, Sept. 9, 2019

By Chris Nichols  If Your Time Is Short: A Facebook post claims people are checking into ERs due to fungal lung infections caused by wearing masks meant to prevent COVID-19. Regional, statewide and national emergency physician groups say they haven't seen any reports to support this.  Health experts say there’s no evidence that wearing standard masks, such as surgical masks or ones made of fabric, is harmful to the general public.  Experts recommend wearing face coverings to slow the coronavirus.  They also say it’s important to wash your hands and to wash reusable masks regularly.  Ruling Statement: “People are starting to enter ERs with fungal lung infections from wearing masks!! Take breaks from your masks.”   A widely-circulated Facebook post claims people are checking into emergency rooms with fungal lung infections due to wearing masks to prevent COVID-19.  “People are starting to enter ERs with fungal lung infections from wearing masks!! Take breaks from your masks.”  The claim, posted on July 2, had been shared 16,000 times and viewed nearly 700,000 times over the past 24 hours.  It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California’s partnership with Facebook). With more states requiring face coverings in public settings, and lots of false claims spreading about masks, we wanted to know whether there’s any truth to this provocative statement.  We set out on a fact check. Misinformation About Masks This is far from the first social media post to claim that wearing masks is harmful to your health. In June, PolitiFact National debunked the multi-part allegation that claimed wearing masks for the coronavirus "decreases oxygen intake, increases toxin inhalation, shuts down immune system” and “increases virus risk.” It rated the claim False.   In May, PolitiFact rated False a similar claim that wearing a mask causes health problems, particularly from breathing in too much exhaled carbon dioxide. It found there’s no credible data to back that up. “Experts say prolonged use of N95 respirator masks can increase blood CO2 levels for people with breathing problems, but those masks are not recommended for the general public, and using ordinary cloth or surgical masks poses little or no risk from CO2,” PolitiFact reported.  Fungal Infections? With those fact checks in mind, we examined whether people are truly showing up at ERs with fungal lung infections due to wearing masks. We reached out to regional, statewide and national experts and found no supporting evidence.  “Neither the chair of our emergency department nor the head of our infectious diseases division have seen that type of condition in a patient after an individual has been using a face mask,” a spokesperson for UC Davis Health in Sacramento wrote in an email.  After looking into the claim, Elena Lopez-Gusman, executive director of the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, called it “as suspected, false.”   Finally, the national American College of Emergency Physicians told us they’ve seen no evidence supporting the claim.  “While we’ve heard some folks complain about irritation, we have not heard of reports of fungal infections stemming from masks,” Maggie McGillick, a spokesperson for ACEP wrote in an email. “There are several professions where people wear masks for hours on end without issue.” The College released a statement last week encouraging people to cover their face when in public. ‘Recycled breathing’ not a real danger Taking a closer look at the Facebook post in question, some commenters wondered whether wearing a mask for hours on end might be harmful, while wearing it for just a short while might not be.  In an email, McGillick of ACEP addressed that concern: “There is not a real danger to breathing in your own air or ‘recycled breathing,’ nor is the idea of low oxygen or carbon dioxide buildup a concern. However, there could be risk from someone’s mask getting contaminated from others and then transferring that to your mouth/eyes/etc. when you touch your own mask.” The spokesperson stressed that it’s important to avoid touching your face and to wash your hands before and after touching your mask. Some commenters on the Facebook post in question said they worried about the health effects of wearing masks. Yet others said they were skeptical of the claim given that doctors, nurses, mechanics and others wear masks for a prolonged period and don’t come down with fungal lung infections.  One medical professional jumped into the comments with her own fact check: “It isn’t happening. I’m an ER nurse. This is not true at all.”  Sanitary Tips For Mask Wearing Earlier this month, the health information website MedicalNewsToday fact-checked a similar claim and found there “is no evidence indicating that masks increase the wearer’s risk of developing pneumonia or other bacterial, viral, or fungal lung infections.”  It also included guidance from leading health organizations for how to safely handle your mask. It found the World Health Organization acknowledges “that if a person wears the same mask for a long time, microorganisms may grow on the fabric.”  “All masks should be changed if wet or visibly soiled; a wet mask should not be worn for an extended period of time. ... Either discard the mask or place it in a sealable bag where it is kept until it can be washed and cleaned,” the WHO advises. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends “that a person removes the face covering once they return home and washes it before using it again,” the MedicalNewsToday article also noted.  Our ruling  A popular Facebook post alleges people are checking into ERs with fungal lung infections due to wearing masks to prevent the coronavirus. Regional, statewide and national emergency physicians groups said there’s no evidence to back up this claim.  Medical experts recommend wearing face coverings to slow the transmission of COVID-19 and say the effects of wearing the coverings are not harmful.  They also encourage people to wash their hands and their masks on a regular basis to avoid contamination.  This claim about mask-wearing leading to fungal lung infections is bogus.  We rated it False.  FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Source List:  Facebook post July 2, 2020 Elena Lopez-Gusman, executive director, California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, email interview July 6, 2020 Maggie McGillick, spokesperson, American College of Emergency Physicians, email interview July 6, 2020 Charles Casey, spokesperson, UC Davis Health, email interview July 6, 2020 PolitiFact, Masks for COVID-19 are effective, as a six-part Facebook takedown fails, June 12, 2020 PolitiFact, There’s no evidence that wearing standard masks is harmful to your health, May 19, 2020 Associated Press, Posts falsely claim that wearing face masks harms health, June 26, 2020 Daily Herald, Facts Matter: Pneumonia not caused by wearing face mask, July 6, 2020 MedicalNewsToday, COVID-19 and face masks: To wear or not to wear?, July 3, 2020 World Health Organization, Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19, June 5, 2020 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, How to Wear Cloth Face Coverings, updated July 6, 2020

Fact checking has become an important tool for citizens to determine if what they are reading and watching is true, false or somewhere in the middle. There is more than enough to fact check this election year. In this edition of PolitiFact on Insight, Chris Nichols looks at confusion and misinformation about California's Prop. 13. No, not Prop. 13, but that has contributed to the confusion. Daniel Burke, from the national arm of Politifact, looks at a range of fact checked stories, from voter fraud in Iowa to where coronavirus comes from, from which Facebook pages disseminate the most false information to how to fact check satire. Guests PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols PolitiFact National Reporter Daniel Funke California Voter Resources Register to vote here. The last day you can register to vote in California's March 3 primary election is Feb. 18. Have questions about how your party preference affects how you can vote in the primary? You can find answers here. Need to get in touch with your county elections office? You can find the office's contact information here.

As the 2020 election campaign continues to heat up, there are lots of claims about lots of things in lots of places, leading to lots of material for fact checkers. In this week’s fact check, Politifact California Reporter Chris Nichols looks at two recent issues. The first is information circulating on social media suggesting an upcoming ballot measure will alter or even repeal Prop 13. The second is some concern about why Bernie Sanders’ name is listed last on the California primary ballot. Guests PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols

Senate Bill 50 is one the most debated California housing bills in years. It resurfaced this month at the State Capitol and so did some exaggerated claims about how it would affect the state’s affordable housing crisis, including claims it could make the crisis worse.  PolitiFact California examined some of those arguments to determine what’s true and what’s not in this controversial bill. Guests PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols

Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was on NBC’s Meet the Press earlier this month. He talked about climate change and promoted World War Zero, a bipartisan coalition he has joined to respond to the climate crisis. He made some claims about California's embrace of renewable and clean energy. PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols will fact check his statement.  On another of the Sunday morning talk shows, CBS’ Face the Nation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently claimed President Donald Trump isn’t serious about building the wall at the US’ southern border. We’ll fact check that, too.  Also joining Insight for this segment is PolitiFact Executive Director, Aaron Sharockman. He discusses the what's next for Politifact and how reporters are preparing for the upcoming election.

Building a new house or an apartment in California can take years, even decades. So, why does it cost so much to build a home in California? It’s more than just the land, labor and materials. PolitiFact California found the lengthy development process itself, complete with delays, strict environmental reviews and expensive impact fees, can add tens of thousands of dollars to the overall cost of new homes in the state.  Reporter Chris Nichols and the PolitiFact California team has looked closer at the fees, what those fees are and why they are so much higher than in many other states. Nichols talked with contractors, developers and an academic to get a full picture.

Mayor Steinberg proposed this idea not just for Sacramento, but for the entire state. Earlier this year, Governor Gavin Newsom named Steinberg to lead the Statewide Commission on Homelessness & Supportive Housing.  Steinberg believes the solution to California’s housing and homeless problem is a partnership between the public and private sectors. This includes a rapid expansion of tiny home construction. Steinberg wants Sacramento to invest $30 million dollars to jump-start this effort. California has been facing an expanding homeless and home affordability problem, particularly in the state’s major metropolitan areas.   Politifact Reporter Chris Nichols joins Insight to share his reporting in this area.

Another Democratic presidential debate is in the books. This time, there were 12 candidates on stage in Westerville, Ohio. This was the first appearance of billionaire Tom Steyer, who lives in San Francisco. Steyer has been a climate activist and has been promoting the impeachment of President Donald Trump for years.   CapRadio’s Politifact Reporter Chris Nichols fact checks statements made during the debate by California Sen. Kamala Harris. He also compares positions she has taken as a candidate with those she took as California’s Attorney General. Chris also fact checks Tom Steyer’s first debate performance and shares fact checks done by Politifact’s national office in Washington, DC.

In this week’s series on California as the “State of Resistance,” today’s installment is about whether California is “winning” its many lawsuits against the Trump administration. The count is now more than 60 lawsuits the state of California has initiated, or joined, against the federal government. The suits span many policy areas, from the disputed citizenship question on the 2020 census to the Trump administration’s attempt to cut off funds for “sanctuary” jurisdictions, from challenging changes to immigration policy to energy and environmental regulations.  Joining us today, Politifact California reporter Chris Nichols shares his fact check on both Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s claims the state is largely “winning” the lawsuits it has filed. With more than 60 already filed, many haven’t been heard yet, so don’t have outcomes. But we’ll review some of the ones filed, some won, some lost, and those yet to come. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom has claimed his administration raised the rainbow flag, a symbol of LGBTQ pride, at the state Capitol "for the first time in our state’s history" this week. But a front page newspaper photo and article from 1990 show otherwise. To clear this up, we set out to fact check this with PolitiFact California’s Chris Nichols. He says this is not the first time the flag has flown atop the Capitol. The San Francisco-based Bay Area Reporter, which serves the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities, published the article on October 18, 1990. It shows the rainbow Pride flag flying over the Capitol on National Coming Out Day, on the main pole below the national and state flags, on October. 11, 1990. Nichols also fact checks a campaign promise the governor made to create universal preschool. This fact check is part of the Newsom-Meter project, which tracks if Newsom is keeping these promises, breaking them or compromising.

Have the values of honesty and truthfulness lost importance with President Donald Trump in the White House? To try to answer these questions, PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols talked with half a dozen delegates at last weekend’s state Democratic Party Convention in San Francisco. Delegates were asked about the importance of those values in their choice of candidates. Since the stage has been set by Trump — who has had some struggles with the truth — the question is: do people feel that the truth has been degraded? Some said we live in a “post-fact” world. A place where ‘truthiness’ from our politicians is good enough. That word, “truthiness,” was coined by Stephen Colbert, host of CBS’ “The Late Show.”