The year 2025 is coming up. It’s only dreadful because of all the new stupid laws that Sacramento has cooked up and served while they delight in their power over our lives.

Here are a few of the new controls that make things more costly for us:

• ABX2-1 would require costly storage regulations on the oil and gas industry – with costs passed on to consumers. Combined with new air regulations approved by CARB, expect a 75 cents to a $1 spike in the price of gas in California. We already pay $1.50 to $2.50 more per gallon of gas – and these new costly regulations will spike that to $2.50 to $3.50 per gallon within two years.

• Starting in 2025, anyone wanting to be foster parent in California must commit to supporting sex change operations for minors – whether they are caring for LGBT children or not. We already face a serious shortage of foster parents and this law will bar good parents from serving in these much-needed roles.

• SB 399 will prohibit employers from requiring employees to attend briefings or meetings where anti-union messages are conveyed. AB 800 kicks in a requirement for California high school juniors and seniors to be taught about their workplace rights, the achievements of organized labor, and students’ right to join a union. It’s no secret why this law came about – Democrats are bankrolled by unions and are rewarding their masters by imposing unfair and inappropriate pro-union mandates in schools and in the workplace.

• SB 707 requires require retail, textile and apparel companies to create collection systems in their stores to accept used clothing and requires them to work to recycle or reuse them. This absurd law is laying the groundwork for a $5 recycling fee for every item you buy, some Republicans are predicting.

• A number of new laws take effect in 2025 to expand sick leave for employees in various ways – costing employers more and making California less attractive for new job creation. One bizarre change mandates that businesses must now allow crime victims to take time off as “sick leave” to recover from the trauma of crimes. If only Sacramento seriously believed in preventing crime in the first place by mollycoddling lawbreakers.

• SB 1283 allows schools to ban social media on campuses and AB 3216 requires school districts to ban cell phone use. However, AB1825 makes it harder for parents to demand removal of pornographic books in libraries.

• AB 1955 will prohibit teachers from telling parents that a student is struggling with sexual identity or orientation. This policy is currently being challenged in federal court and will likely be declared unconstitutional – but for now it is officially on the books. Parents need to know what their own children are going through to help them. But Democrats don’t trust parents, period.

• California businesses are getting hit with a massive payroll tax hike as of Jan. 1– and worse, the tax hike is scheduled to go up exponentially every year thereafter until a massive $20 billion debt that state politicians ran up in the unemployment system is repaid to the federal government.

Specifically all businesses, regardless of size, will be forced to pay an additional $21 per employee on their payroll taxes – with the amount increasing $21 per year every year into the future. Newsom and his party borrowed the money and allowed $32 billion to be wasted in fraudulent unemployment benefits. Worse, Newsom simply declared California has no money to pay back the loan – though he does have billions to spend on taxpayer-funded handouts each year to illegal immigrants.

* * * * *

Gubernatorial hopeful Eric Swalwell is floating the idea of voting by phone. This is about the looniest idea I have heard as there is an effort underway to place on the ballot a measure that would return to the days of showing ID at the polls.

As tempting as it might be to embrace technology under the banner of convenience and “access,” some things should remain rooted in physical, verifiable, real-world safeguards.

Swalwell’s “vote by phone” proposal threatens those safeguards. It undermines election security, removes verifiability and opens the door to hacking, fraud, manipulation, and foreign interference. Rather than “maxing out democracy,” it would risk destroying the very foundation of a free and fair electoral process.

We must demand voter-verified paper ballots, strict identity and eligibility verification, and robust audit capabilities. 

Proposals to allow voting by phone have long been criticized by election security experts. Consider that phones and internet-based systems are easily subject to hacking, spoofing, impersonation, or large-scale manipulation. Historically, the idea of remote or electronic voting has been tried and rejected. For instance, a prior effort to allow overseas and military voters to cast ballots via the Internet — dubbed Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE) — was cancelled in 2004 after a security review found the risk unacceptable.

Given how some elections are hotly contested – like our own 13th Congressional District that was super close in 2024 – such a system would be a prime target for cyber-attacks, foreign interference or large-scale fraud. Even assuming the best cryptographic safeguards, there is no equivalent of a “paper trail” with phone voting. That means after the fact, voters and officials would have little reliable way to audit, confirm, or contest results.

Swalwell frames the idea as making voting easier — akin to how we manage taxes, banking, or appointments online. But voting isn’t like paying a bill: it’s the mechanism by which we govern ourselves. The integrity of that process — faith that each vote cast was legitimate, that results are accurate, that every vote is tied to a real, eligible citizen — matters far more than convenience.

* * * * *

Interesting how things change so quickly in the world of politics.

John Duarte was a U.S. congressman as of last January and now a private citizen after losing to Adam Gray in 2024. I spied Duarte Friday night on Washington Street in Sonora, racing ahead of the horse carrying his wife, Alexandra, a candidate for state Assembly in the Christmas parade, to shoot video of her. Did anyone in the crowd recognize the one-term congressman shooting what is probably campaign video for his wife? I doubt many did.

Strange how you can be the candidate elevated to the height of the U.S. Congress only to be brought down and months later work on the campaign of your wife for another office.

Alexandra Duarte is running against fellow Republican state Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil. Jeramy Young, the former mayor of Hughson and now the Livermore Police Chief, is another Republican running. Only one Democrat, Tuolumne County Supervisor Jaron Brandon, is seeking the Senate district 4 seat.

If I were a betting man – and I am not – I’d say the incumbent has the advantage to keep her seat despite all the accusations that she changed parties for political expediency. I don’t think that’s the case as I was listening to her speak years before she switched from a Democrat to a Republican and wondered why she wasn’t already a Republican. The Democrats have become so radically left that I’m never surprised to see defections to the other side.

* * * * *

Is the Hughson City Council wising up?

Members last week expressed concern about Mayor George Carr requesting, once again, to go to Washington, D.C. on the taxpayers’ dime. This time he wants to spend $5,600 of taxpayer money to attend the U.S. Conference of Mayors 94th Winter Meeting in January. That means airfare, hotels, food, conference costs and more.

Kudos to Councilwoman Julie Ann Strain who protested and pointed out the council’s entire training budget is $11,355 that must last until June 30, 2026 and more conferenes are coming up. She noted the conference is for mayors of cities of at least 30,000 population and Carr is mayor of a city of 7,523.

Councilwoman Susana Vasquez went further to say Carr has been attending “every year” and questioned “why is this an annual thing?”

“I wish he were here to explain the fruits of what he brought back with him, how it has changed the city, how it has benefited in any way,” Vasquez said. “I don’t feel that it has.”

Councilman Alan McFadon chimed in that last year all Hughson got was a short report. “I really didn’t see any benefit to the city of Hughson from his attendance … with just a quick 30-second update.”

Despite all the strong objections, the council didn’t have the fortitude to outright deny Carr’s request, opting instead to give him a chance at the next meeting to present his case why he should get a free trip.

Why did the smallest city in Stanislaus County ever pay for its mayor to fly to Washington, D.C. and hotel and all other expenses so he could attend? I can see big city mayors going – people like Christina Fugazi, the mayor Stockton (325,976 population); Todd Gloria, the mayor San Diego (1,389,672 population); Jerry Dyer, the mayor of Fresno (811,000 population), or Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose (969,655 residents). I’ll even concede the attendance of Sue Zwahlen, the mayor of Modesto (218,069).

I know, I know, I go back to lobby for federal dollars while I’m back there. Can’t that be done over the phone or Zoom? Why do I suspect this is all about a taxpayer-paid junket?

Will Javier Lopez go to DC again too? I don’t recall ever seeing such an item approving his attendance on a Ceres City Council agenda like what was done in Hughson. 

Carr and Lopez have been on a number of free trips to D.C. and Southern California and not much to show for it.

This column is the opinion of Jeff Benziger, and does not necessarily represent the opinion of The Ceres Courier or 209 Multimedia Corporation.  How do you feel about this? Let Jeff know at jeffb@cerescourier.com