2026 Measles Cases in California Already Surpass 2025 Total; Health Dept. Urges Vaccination
California has reported more measles cases just months into 2026 than in all of last year, prompting renewed warnings from state health officials as outbreaks continue to spread.
According to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), “more cases and outbreaks of measles have been confirmed in California in 2026 than in all of 2025,” underscoring a sharp rise in infections early in the year.
State data show at least 39 confirmed cases statewide as of mid-April, compared to 25 total cases in all of 2025, a more than 50 percent increase with much of the year still ahead. Earlier in the year, CDPH reported 26 cases across nine counties by early March, with nearly all infections linked to people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown.
The largest outbreak is centered in the Sacramento region, where health officials reported new cases within the past week. CDPH said recently that local health departments in Sacramento and Placer counties had identified “multiple recent cases,” prompting the agency to urge immediate precautions.
To limit transmission, CDPH is advising that unvaccinated individuals exposed to measles “stay at home,” and that anyone with symptoms contact a health care provider before seeking in-person care.
Public health officials say the surge is being driven largely by travel-related infections and spread from other U.S. outbreaks. CDPH noted that cases in California have been linked to travel abroad and to domestic outbreaks, including one in South Carolina that is connected to cases in Northern California.
The data also show the outbreak is disproportionately affecting younger populations. About 85 percent of cases are among people under age 20, and 95 percent involve individuals who are unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is unknown, according to state health officials.
Health officials continue to stress that measles — one of the most contagious viruses — is preventable. CDPH and local agencies are urging residents to ensure they are up to date on the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine as the state works to contain the spread.
Your Vote in 2026: Bill Banning Law Enforcement From Polling Stations Advances – Carrying Fines Up to $1000 and 5-Year Max Prison Time
A California Assembly committee has advanced a bill that would ban law enforcement officers from being near polling places, with violations carrying penalties of up to $1,000 in fines and a maximum five-year prison sentence.
The proposal would make it a felony for anyone in a law enforcement uniform or displaying agency insignia to be within the immediate vicinity of a polling location unless responding to a public safety emergency. Supporters say the measure is intended to protect voters from intimidation ahead of the 2026 elections.
Assemblymember Anamarie Avila Farias (D-Martinez) introduced the bill over concerns that federal immigration agents could appear near polling sites. She argued that such a presence could discourage participation, particularly among immigrant communities.
The legislation comes amid ongoing national debates over election security and immigration enforcement. While federal law already prohibits certain forms of election interference, Democratic lawmakers said additional safeguards are needed.
“The idea that this president would not send ICE agents to intimidate legitimate voters at polling places is laughable,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), during the committee hearing.
Republicans opposed the bill, raising concerns about whether California has the legal authority to regulate federal officers. Assemblymember James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) questioned whether the state could enforce such penalties against federal agents.
Legal experts say the proposal could face constitutional challenges if it becomes law, as it tests the limits of state authority over federal enforcement actions.
In addition to polling place restrictions, the bill would also prohibit immigration agents from conducting enforcement operations near childcare centers.
The measure is part of a broader push by Democratic lawmakers to limit federal immigration enforcement activities in California. Other proposals moving through the Legislature seek to restrict operations on state property and limit state support for private detention facilities.
The bill now heads to additional legislative committees for consideration. Its outcome could shape how California balances voter protections with legal and political challenges ahead of the 2026 election cycle.
Supporters say the stakes are high, arguing that ensuring voters can cast ballots without fear is critical to maintaining confidence in the state’s elections.
Asm. Mia Bonta “Tells the Truth” About Bill Conservatives Say Would Silence Citizen Journalists
Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) is pushing back against criticism of her bill, Assembly (AB) 2624, releasing a video statement on X defending the legislation and accusing critics of spreading misinformation.
In the video, Bonta said “right-wing agitators” — including Elon Musk — are misrepresenting the bill. She explained that AB 2624 would expand California’s Safe at Home program to include immigrant service providers, allowing them to shield personal information like home addresses from public disclosure if they face threats, harassment, or doxing.
“This bill does not infringe on the First Amendment,” Bonta said, adding that it targets harmful behavior such as sharing personal information “with the intent to incite imminent… bodily harm or place someone in fear for their safety.”
The Safe at Home program already protects victims of domestic violence and certain health care providers. Bonta argues her bill simply extends those protections to workers serving immigrant communities, who she says increasingly face targeted harassment.
However, critics — particularly conservatives — say the bill goes much further.
Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) has emerged as one of the most vocal opponents. Speaking during a recent Assembly committee hearing, DeMaio warned that AB 2624 could restrict investigative reporting and punish watchdogs who document potential wrongdoing.
“AB 2624 can only be described as the ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ — a bill designed to silence citizen journalists exposing fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars,” DeMaio said, arguing that the measure could allow organizations to demand the removal of publicly recorded video and impose financial penalties.
The nickname refers to independent journalist Nick Shirley, whose viral videos have highlighted alleged fraud in government-funded programs. Critics say the bill could limit similar investigations by broadening privacy protections to organizations receiving public funds.
During the hearing, DeMaio also questioned whether the bill creates a “double standard” by extending protections to certain groups while not applying the same rules to law enforcement. Bonta responded that the legislation is narrowly focused on preventing threats and harassment, not restricting legitimate journalism.
As AB 2624 advances through the Legislature, the debate reflects a broader tension between privacy protections and press freedom. Supporters frame the bill as a necessary safeguard for vulnerable workers, while opponents warn it could chill transparency and investigative reporting.
On April 15, the Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 9-3 to advance AB 2624. It has now moved to the Assembly Public Safety Committee for consideration.
Bill That Would Force Corporations to Disclose Slavery-Era Profits Moves Forward
On April 14, 2026, Assembly Bill (AB) 2599, known as the Truth in Disclosure Act, authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights), passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee on a 9-3 vote.
Supported by the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC), the bill would require qualifying corporations—specifically in industries such as banking, insurance, railroads, shipping, textiles, and tobacco—to submit affidavits disclosing whether they were engaged in or profited from chattel slavery.
“The Truth in Disclosure Act requires any company doing business in California with annual worldwide gross receipts of over $100 million to verify and search their records for any transaction related to wealth gained during chattel slavery,” Bryan said.
A coalition including the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation and Truth (ARRT), the Equal Justice Society, and the California Black Power Network participated in the Judiciary Committee hearing to support AB 2599.
While California was admitted as a “free state” in 1850, the state did not have a traditional plantation economy, and there was no single, definitive list of businesses that participated in chattel slavery.
According to a report by Durham University, California’s Reparations Task Force indicated that, through the 1850s, about 1,500 enslaved African Americans were brought to the state, with many businesses benefiting from this forced labor.
AB 2599’s affidavits, which must disclose whether a company profited from or facilitated slavery-era transactions, are subject to penalties for perjury, according to the bill’s language.
The bill requires an unspecified department to create a publicly searchable digital platform by Jan. 1, 2028, to display these affidavits.
California Senate Unveils “Foundation for the Future” Budget Plan to Address Deficit; Protect Core Programs
California State Senate leaders on April 18 released a new budget framework for the 2026–27 fiscal year aimed at stabilizing the state’s finances while maintaining funding for essential services, including health care, housing and education.
The proposal, dubbed the “Foundation for the Future” plan, focuses on three priorities: building reserves, preserving key programs and reducing the state’s long-term structural deficit. Lawmakers say the approach is designed to address ongoing budget shortfalls without placing additional strain on working families.
“At the center of the Foundation for the Future budget plan are the people feeling the greatest financial strain: working families and the middle class,” said Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón. “California families are doing everything right, yet many are still struggling to keep up.”
The plan calls for increasing the state’s Rainy Day Fund and maintaining investments in programs such as housing assistance, childcare expansion and Medi-Cal. It also introduces a “Fair Share Contribution,” which would require the largest corporations that do not provide employee health coverage to help offset public health care costs.
According to the Senate, about 42 percent of Medi-Cal enrollees are full-time workers whose employers do not provide coverage, shifting billions in costs to taxpayers. The proposed contribution could generate between $5 billion and $8 billion annually.
Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, said the plan reflects a balanced approach.
“We’re setting aside more in reserves and holding the line on new ongoing spending, while continuing to fund the programs people rely on,” Laird said.
Sen. Laura Richardson (D-Inglewood), who chairs a key budget subcommittee, emphasized the extensive review process behind the proposal.
“For the last several months, members have circumspectly reviewed the Governor’s budget… while simultaneously working to identify areas where different approaches could produce greater results and financial saving solutions,” Richardson said, noting that input from frontline public workers helped shape the plan.
The Senate’s proposal now enters negotiations with the Assembly and Gov. Gavin Newsom ahead of the June budget deadline.
Lawsuit Claims Amazon Forces Sellers to Charge Higher Prices — Atty. Gen. Bonta Announces “Victory” in Price-Fixing Case
On April 16, a San Francisco Superior Court denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss key claims in its defense against allegations that it violated state antitrust and unfair competition laws by disrupting price competition.
The court denied Amazon’s motion for summary judgment on its seventh crossclaim, finding sufficient evidence that Amazon’s pricing policies potentially violate the California Cartwright Act.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is suing Amazon over allegations that the company fixes prices and stifles competition through its seller agreements. The judge’s decision allows the case to proceed.
“This victory is a key update in this case and sends a clear message to current and future behemoth corporations: The California Department of Justice will not allow consumers to be cheated,” Bonta stated. “While consumers face a crisis of affordability, there is no room for anticompetitive pricing practices that impede free market competition and raise prices for consumers.”
The lawsuit, initially filed in September 2022, claims Amazon uses its dominant m
arket power to prevent third-party sellers from offering lower prices on other platforms such as Walmart, eBay, Target, or their own websites.
Amazon argues that sellers set their own prices and that the company, as a retailer, has the right not to highlight products that are not priced competitively. Amazon has stated that the claims in the lawsuit are “entirely false and misguided.”
“Amazon is consistently identified as America’s lowest-priced online retailer, and it is ironic that the attorney general seeks to have us feature higher prices in ways that would harm consumers and competition,” the company said in a statement.