In City & County of San Francisco v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 703, California's First District Court of Appeal held that special taxes proposed by voter initiative require only a simple majority vote to pass, notwithstanding the provisions of Proposition 13 and Proposition 218, which would otherwise require a two-thirds approva
On May 7, 2020, California Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-63-20 (EO N-63-20) as part of his broad response to COVID-19. EO N-63-20, among many things, extends multiple statutory and regulatory timelines.
On June 30, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that Montana's exclusion of religious schools from a state scholarship program discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them, and violated the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.
The California Attorney General, in a recent opinion, has concluded that members of legislative bodies may not receive health and welfare benefits not widely offered to the agencies' employees and officers and that mistakes made in determining benefit plans offered to legislative body members can yield serious consequences.
A recent court ruling reaffirms the expansiveness of administrative records required to be retained under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In a series of executive orders addressing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Gavin Newsom has extended a statutorily-imposed timeline significant to public entities.
As California's local educational agencies (LEAs) examine how and when schools can reopen, a frequent question has been the extent to which face coverings will be required for staff and students.
SB 98 is the recent Education Budget Trailer Bill signed into law by Gavin Newsom on June 29, 2020. Among other things, it was enacted to protect school funding from uncertainties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.