The only nonprofit newsroom in California dedicated exclusively to covering statewide issues that impact all Californians is CalMatters. Welcome. For a Saturday morning summary of the most recent Golden State news and analysis, sign up for WeeklyMatters.
This article is featured on California Voices, a discussion platform that aims to increase public awareness of the state and highlight Californians who are directly affected by policies or their lack. Find out more here.
In a 1936 essay, sociologist Robert Merton first used the term “unintended consequences” to describe how people act in ways they initially thought would benefit them but subsequently discovered had the opposite effect. A book documenting the seemingly endless instances of unfavorable outcomes from the orders made by California lawmakers and governors may and ought to be written.
The most notable example is perhaps the so-called deregulation of California’s electrical power system, which was supported by then-Governor Pete Wilson and lawmakers from both parties 29 years ago. Proponents praised the reform as a daring move that would guarantee sufficient power supplies and lower utility costs for customers.
But it was a complete catastrophe that encouraged electrical market manipulation and increased prices. It drove Southern California Edison to the verge of bankruptcy and forced Pacific Gas and Electric Co. into bankruptcy.
Strangely enough, it did not stop California politicians from trying to influence how their citizens get and pay for electricity. This year’s example is Senate Bill 540, a contentious bill that, if passed, would force California to join a regional power consortium with unknowable repercussions.
There are more noteworthy instances of laws that backfired.
One is Assembly Bill 218 from 2019, which temporarily halted the statute of limitations for cases alleging sexual assault. Supporters dismissed concerns that it would be a legal windfall, arguing that it would finally provide victims with justice. Numerous lawsuits have been brought against school systems and municipal governments, leading to multibillion-dollar settlements. One such settlement was a $4 billion payment made by Los Angeles County to resolve 6,800 claims from former foster children and teenagers who had previously been incarcerated.
READ NEXT
Heinous, heartbreaking and expensive. California schools face avalanche of sex abuse claims
The ability of public entities to obtain liability insurance has also been skewed by the wave of misuse lawsuits. Former Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, the bill’s author, has demanded revisions.
Gonzalez, who is currently the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, stated on social media that his top priorities when drafting AB 218 were to safeguard children from sex assault and guarantee that victims may receive some justice. Some dishonest lawyers are now treating it like a feeding frenzy. I’m in favor of policies that cap legal fees or take other steps to reduce expenses for government agencies.
There are numerous other recent instances of potentially negative outcomes, such as the late-blooming attempt by Democratic lawmakers and Governor Gavin Newsom to temporarily change California’s 52 congressional districts in order to increase the number of Democratic members and counteract a Republican-sponsored gerrymander in Texas.
There are other ongoing lawsuits that could have detrimental effects besides the electric power and gerrymandering measures. School operations are included in two of them.
One is Assembly Bill 1264, which would eliminate highly processed foods from the millions of meals that pupils get in public schools.
Advocates claim that these meals have a negative impact on children’s health, which is undoubtedly a valid concern if it is demonstrated. However, detractors claim that the bill, which assigns a state body the responsibility of defining such items, could outlaw foods that Californians frequently eat and lead to a deluge of litigation, similar to what transpired when Gonzalez’s child abuse statute was passed.
The second is Assembly Bill 495, which would increase the number of individuals who might be in charge of public school pupils while their parents or other approved caregivers are not present. Its goal is to safeguard children whose parents have been affected by the federal government’s crackdown on illegal immigrants. The legislation’s lenient definition, according to critics, may allow anyone to pretend to be a substitute caregiver, putting kids in danger rather than ensuring their safety.
In his work, Merton noted that proponents of new programs or policies always emphasize their good intentions while downplaying or disregarding any negative dangers. Politicians in California ought to have realized by now that it’s a deadly syndrome.
READ NEXT
Will California ban ultra-processed foods in school meals?
California cut coal from its energy supply. Why it might plug back into fossil fuels
CalMatters has further information.
Text
Receive breaking news on your mobile device.
Get it here
Use our app to stay up to date.
Register
Get free updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Nonpartisan, independent California news for all
CalMatters is your impartial, nonprofit news source.
Our goal remains crucial, and our journalists are here to empower you.
-
We are independent and nonpartisan.
Our trustworthy journalism is free from partisan politics, free from corporate influence and actually free for all Californians. -
We are focused on California issues.
From the environment to homelessness, economy and more, we publish the unfettered truth to keep you informed. -
We hold people in power accountable.
We probe and reveal the actions and inactions of powerful people and institutions, and the consequences that follow.
However, without the help of readers like you, we are unable to continue.
Give what you can now, please. Every gift makes a difference.
California groundwater reform sets a dangerous precedent. Lawmakers should think twice