Martes, 30 Junio 2026, 0:25
After a 12-year battle with stage four blood cancer, Laurie Adami was given less than a month to live in 2018. Diagnosed in 2006 with late-stage follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a disease long considered incurable, she had over 8 pounds of cancerous tumors throughout her body.
Her final treatment option was Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell therapy, or CAR-T, a form of cancer immunotherapy that reprograms a patient's white blood cells to hunt and destroy cancer cells. Within 30 days of receiving CAR-T, Adami was cancer-free.
"That shows the power of this new treatment, which is like nothing else has ever been," Adami said. "And if I hadn’t done CAR-T when I got it, I would’ve been dead within a month."
Adami had known about CAR-T since 2012 but was forced to wait six years due to delays in research and the lack of clinical trials for her cancer type. Now a patient advocate, she supports California's proposed $8.4 billion medical research bond, the California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative, which would provide stable state funding for immunotherapy research and other disease treatments.
If approved by voters in November, the bond would fund research on immunotherapies like CAR-T to treat and prevent cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and other serious illnesses.
Critics argue the measure would commit the state to decades of debt for a narrow slice of science funding at a time when sweeping cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are affecting universities and labs. Over the past year, the Trump administration froze or cut at least $2.3 billion in previously approved NIH grants, canceling hundreds of research projects on topics including HIV treatment, COVID-19, and child vaccinations.
The University of California estimated losses of over $37 million, while California State University reported losses of at least $7 million.
"Several of our patients had to stop their treatment in a clinical trial because the funding was gone," said Adam Zarrin, director of state government affairs at Blood Cancer United. He noted that researchers in the middle of trials also lost access to necessary resources.
Adami recalled a family she knew whose young child with leukemia died after a clinical trial was shut down due to NIH cuts.
Supporters say the bond would offset federal cuts. Half of the $8.4 billion would go to research on cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's, with the rest funding a grant program for California-based public and nonprofit universities and medical research institutions.
The bond would not award funds to for-profit organizations or pharmaceutical companies. It mandates that 10% of licensing revenue from treatments be returned to California to offset costs, caps administrative costs at 2%, and requires that any developed treatments be offered to Californians at least 20% below the national average price.
The bond is backed by disease advocacy groups including Blood Cancer United, the ALS Association, and the Alzheimer's Association, and is primarily financed by billionaire philanthropist Dr. Gary K.
Michelson, who pledged $120 million in 2024 to launch the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, a UCLA-affiliated research center expected to open in 2027.
Opposition centers on the funding structure, which would cost the state an estimated $500 million annually over 25 years to repay the bond, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. Critics also argue the measure's scope is too limited.
"This approach risks turning research funding into a series of competing campaigns, leaving less visible but equally important conditions behind," wrote Robert M. Kaplan, an adjunct professor at Stanford School of Medicine, in an opinion piece for the Sacramento Bee.
Shane Crotty, chief science officer at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, said researchers are leaving the country or the field due to funding cuts. "It feels like you’ve got a team of people rolling a boulder up a hill.
So if you have a pause in the resources, some of those people are leaving," he said. He believes the bond could significantly improve health outcomes for Californians by accelerating advances in immune system research.
Adami emphasized the bond's potential to save lives. "$8.4 billion is going to give us this huge leg up and get research kick-started where it should be across all our California research institutions," she said.
"And why shouldn’t California lead immunotherapy research?"
Supreme Court Upholds Late Mail Ballot Counting, Protecting California's 7-Day Rule
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states can count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to seven days later, rejecting a Republican-led challenge.
California's law allowing ballots to arrive within seven days after Election Day remains intact, benefiting thousands of voters in San Diego and statewide.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices, emphasizing that federal election day statutes do not set a ballot receipt deadline.
More than 400,000 late-arriving ballots were counted in California in 2024, representing 2.5% of total votes, with no evidence of fraud.
The decision avoids election-year chaos for administrators and upholds state authority over election procedures.
In a significant victory for voting rights and state autonomy, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld California's vote-by-mail rules, allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day if they are postmarked beforehand. The 5-4 ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee rejected a challenge by national Republicans and the Trump administration, ensuring that California's seven-day grace period remains in effect.
What the Supreme Court Decided
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, concluded that federal laws designating Election Day do not require ballots to be received by that date. “The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day,” Barrett wrote. “But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority.
The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and in part by Brett Kavanaugh, argued that the ruling undermines election integrity. “Not only is today’s decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences,” Alito wrote.
Impact on California Voters
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber hailed the decision as a victory for voters. “This assures people that if I put my ballot in the mail and it gets postmarked, that it will be counted in California,” Weber said. In San Diego, election officials reported receiving thousands of ballots postmarked by Election Day but arriving late during the primaries. San Diego Registrar of Voters Shawn Brom noted that the seven-day window allowed those ballots to be counted.
State leaders emphasized that the rule protects voters from mail delays. “Even the postal service recognized that it could not guarantee things that were postmarked under the other election actually getting to us in time,” Weber said, citing instances where mail routes from California to Oregon and back caused delays.
Local California Context
California has been a focal point of GOP attacks on mail-in voting, but the state's system has proven reliable. In 2024, more than 400,000 late-arriving ballots were counted, amounting to only 2.5% of the total vote. Election law experts attribute slow tabulations to the surge in mail voting and the need for signature verification, not fraud. The Supreme Court ruling confirms that California's approach aligns with federal law, avoiding potential disruption for the upcoming midterm elections.
Reactions and Next Steps
Voting rights advocates praised the decision. “A ballot mailed on time is a vote cast on time, and the court just affirmed what’s been true for over a century,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. President Donald Trump called the ruling a “tremendous loss” on Truth Social and renewed calls for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would impose stricter voting requirements.
Election officials in California will continue to educate voters about the rules. The decision underscores that states retain authority to set election procedures, a principle that remains intact heading into November.
Sources and Materials
Ex-El Cerrito Teacher Sentenced for Statutory Rape of Disabled Student
📌 Jason Hoopes, 50, pleaded no contest to arranging a sexual meeting with a minor and statutory rape of a student at Bayhill High School.
📜 Hoopes sent graphic sexual messages, including violent fantasies, and wrote a suicide note blaming the victim.
⚖️ He was sentenced to six years and eight months in prison and must register as a sex offender for life.
🔍 The principal reported Hoopes may have targeted a second student, though no charges have been filed.
🏫 Bayhill High School serves students with learning disabilities in grades 7–12.
An El Cerrito man and former teacher at a private school for students with learning disabilities has been sentenced to prison after pleading no contest to statutory rape and arranging a sexual meeting with a minor. Jason Hoopes, 50, was arrested in 2025 on 23 felony counts but reached a plea deal that resulted in a six-year, eight-month prison term and lifetime sex offender registration, according to the Alameda County District Attorney's Office.
Grooming and Graphic Messages
Court records reveal that Hoopes, a band teacher at Bayhill High School in Berkeley, engaged in a pattern of grooming the victim through explicit text messages. In one message, he wrote, “I’m laying here in bed in the dark listening to a demo I did of a new song for my band and writing lyrics totally thinking about you.” Other messages included violent fantasies, such as wanting to “kidnap you off the street” and “sneak into your room in the night while you’re sleeping” armed with a knife. The abuse occurred between March 23 and May 4 of last year, according to charging documents.
Suicide Note Blames Victim
When Hoopes learned of the impending arrest, he authored a suicide note left for his partner, who turned it over to police. In the note, he attempted to shift blame to the victim, writing that they “crossed a line together.” District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson condemned the act, stating, “This was a profound betrayal of trust.”
School and Community Response
Bayhill High School, which serves students in grades 7–12 with learning disabilities, fired Hoopes after his arrest. The school issued a statement calling the arrest “shocking and devastating for our entire school community.” The principal also alerted police that Hoopes may have targeted a second student, though no charges have been filed in that case.
Local California Context
Hoopes, an El Cerrito resident, taught at Bayhill High School in Berkeley, Alameda County. The case highlights ongoing concerns about educator misconduct and the protection of vulnerable students in California private schools. The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office emphasized the importance of holding trusted adults accountable.
Conclusion
Jason Hoopes now faces a six-year, eight-month prison sentence and lifetime registration as a sex offender. His case serves as a stark reminder of the need for vigilance in safeguarding students from abuse of power. Parents and community members are urged to report any suspicions of misconduct to authorities.
Sources and Materials
Mercury News: Ex-teacher pleads no contest to statutory rape of student at Bayhill High School
Mercury News: Berkeley ex-school teacher who claimed to be in love with student sentenced to prison
Cal Water Cyberattack: Investigation Finds No Operational Technology Breach
📌 Iranian hacker group Handala claimed deep access to Cal Water's industrial control systems, but Mandiant investigation found no evidence of OT or IT compromise.
📌 The breach was limited to two third-party vendor platforms, affecting a small number of user accounts.
📌 One customer account was accessed via stolen credentials, but no payment or sensitive financial data was compromised.
📌 Cal Water serves nearly 2 million Californians, including areas in Livermore and Stockton.
The cybersecurity firm Mandiant confirmed Friday that the June cyberattack on California Water Service (Cal Water) did not breach the utility's operational technology (OT) systems, despite claims by the Iranian hacker group Handala. The incident, which raised concerns about water supply safety, was contained to third-party platforms with no disruption to water delivery or treatment.
Investigation Details
Mandiant, hired by Cal Water to investigate the attack, found that the threat actor accessed a small number of user accounts on two external vendor platforms. This included one customer's account accessed using stolen login credentials. The compromised account did not provide access to the billing system, and no payment information was taken.
What Was Accessed?
The hackers also breached an external website related to a GPS location correction tool, which contained no confidential or sensitive information. Mandiant confirmed no evidence of activity in Cal Water's internal IT or OT environments, contradicting Handala's claim that they could have disrupted the water supply.
Local California Context
Cal Water provides water to nearly 2 million residents across California, including communities in Livermore and Stockton. The utility's swift response and collaboration with state and federal agencies ensured no impact on local water services. Livermore residents, in particular, can rest assured that their water supply remains secure.
Rising Threats to Water Systems
Cyberattacks on U.S. water utilities are increasing, with federal agencies repeatedly warning about vulnerabilities in legacy systems and third-party platforms. This incident underscores the importance of robust security measures for critical infrastructure. Cal Water stated it will continue working with partners to strengthen defenses.
Conclusion
The Cal Water cyberattack, while unsettling, was contained with no operational impact. The investigation by Mandiant provides reassurance that the water supply was never at risk. However, the incident serves as a reminder for all utilities to enhance cybersecurity protocols, especially regarding third-party access.
Sources and Materials
The bond measure will appear on the November ballot alongside 14 other complex propositions, including measures on a billionaires tax, voter ID requirements, and local tax limitations. Analysts warn that voters may reject everything due to confusion or fatigue.
SACRAMENTO — In a stark contrast to the dysfunction in Washington, California's Democratic-led Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom have united to pass a significant $11.25 billion bond measure aimed at tackling the state's housing affordability crisis. The measure, signed into law just before the deadline for the November ballot, will provide government subsidies for affordable housing construction, primarily targeting low-income renters, veterans, farmworkers, and students.
The move comes as President Donald Trump, despite a rare bipartisan congressional effort to pass a federal housing bill, abruptly reversed course. He refused to sign the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, instead demanding unrelated voter ID legislation that has little chance of passage.
This decision left Republican leaders embarrassed and frustrated, highlighting a stark difference in approach between the state and federal governments.
Newsom, in a pointed statement, said, "In California, we don’t turn away from the needs of our people." The bond, officially known as the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, includes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable rentals and $1.25 billion for the popular CalVet loan program for military veterans. The CalVet portion is self-supporting, repaid through mortgages, while the $10 billion will be repaid by taxpayers over 30 years, costing an estimated $580 million annually.
Some Republicans in the state Legislature objected to the borrowing, questioning why it was necessary given record state revenues. Assemblyman David Tangipa (R-Fresno) asked, "We’ve got record revenue, why do we need to borrow money?" However, supporters argued that without the bond, affordable housing construction would be impossible due to the need for government subsidies to make projects financially viable.
In addition to the state bond, a separate initiative championed by former legislative leader Bob Hertzberg will appear on the November ballot. This measure, aimed at middle-class homebuyers, would authorize $25 billion in revenue bonds repaid by buyers through mortgages, costing taxpayers nothing.
It would help eligible buyers with down payments on newly constructed homes, with income limits set at 200% of the area's median income.
The November ballot is expected to be crowded with 14 complex propositions, including measures on a billionaires tax, voter ID requirements, and local tax limitations. Analysts warn that voters may reject everything due to confusion or fatigue.
Despite these challenges, the state's housing bonds represent a comprehensive effort to address affordability across income levels, especially in the absence of reliable federal leadership.
The reform has drawn sharp reactions from the two candidates vying to become the next State Superintendent. On Friday, hours after the release of AB 181, Barrera told EdSource, “While I need to take some time to work through the details of the agreement, my focus as SPI will remain the same: I will work to pull students, parents, educators and all stakeholders together around a vision of fully funded schools where young people thrive.” Shaw issued a press release calling the bill “an unprecedented, unconstitutional power grab by Newsom” and urged legislators to defeat it, stating, “This bill is a direct assault by Gavin Newsom on the California Constitution and the will of the voters. Voters elect their State Superintendent to serve as an independent voice for California education, not as a figurehead. This bill strips that office of its core duties and hands them to a political appointee. It removes critical checks and balances, and tells parents their votes no longer matter.” Lupita Cortez Alcalá, PACE executive director, praised the deal, saying, “This represents one of the most significant education governance reforms in California’s history. This law recognizes that improving education requires more than bold investments — it requires clear leadership, rigorous evaluation and a commitment to continuous learning.” Newsom added in a statement, “California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century. So we are going to modernize the governance system by unifying the policy-making State Board with the Department of Education that implements those policies.”
California is poised to enact the most significant restructuring of its K-12 education administration in decades, shifting control of the California Department of Education from the elected State Superintendent to a new Director of Education appointed by the governor. The reform, unveiled Friday as part of the 2026-27 budget negotiations between Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, is expected to receive final legislative approval early next week.
The changes are codified in Assembly Bill 181, which merges Newsom's original proposal with legislation introduced by Assemblymembers Darshana Patel and David Alvarez, both San Diego Democrats. The governor made the realignment a cornerstone of his January State of the State address and initial budget proposal, acting on recommendations from a December report by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), a Stanford University-based nonprofit research institute.
PACE's analysis concluded that the current split system—where the governor and appointed State Board of Education set policy but lack authority to implement it, while the independently elected superintendent runs the department—creates inefficiencies and hampers effectiveness. Under the new law, effective January 15, the governor will appoint, and the state Senate will confirm, a Director of Education who will assume all operational duties of the Department of Education.
The elected State Superintendent will remain an independent voice but will no longer manage the department; instead, the role will evolve into a voting member of the State Board of Education, an additional seat on the Community College System Board of Governors, and an independent evaluator and ombudsman for the Legislature.
Dozens of education organizations and advocacy groups have endorsed the reform, hoping it will reduce confusion and complaints from schools and parents over program rollouts like transitional kindergarten and school improvement efforts. Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, praised Newsom's leadership, noting that the change has been recommended for a century.
Ed Manansala, El Dorado County Superintendent of Schools, said county superintendents back the proposal because a lack of unified state direction forces schools to absorb the cost of competing priorities.
However, the reform faces strong opposition. The two candidates for State Superintendent in the November election, Sonja Shaw and Richard Barrera, both opposed reducing the job's authority.
Shaw called the bill an "unprecedented, unconstitutional power grab" and urged lawmakers to defeat it. The California Teachers Association also criticized the plan, arguing voters elected candidates expecting them to run the Department of Education.
CTA President David Goldberg criticized Newsom for pushing the reform through budget negotiations rather than the standard legislative process with hearings and public comment.
The reform is not final. By June 30, 2027, the new Director of Education must develop recommendations for further streamlining oversight, including the roles of county offices of education, the state education department, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.
The director will also propose resources and funding for the State Superintendent's new responsibilities. In a concession to the Legislature, the Senate president pro tem and the Assembly speaker will each appoint a new member to the State Board of Education, expanding it from 11 to 13 members.
Michael Kirst, who chaired the State Board for 16 years under Governors Jerry Brown, called the law "the culmination of longstanding recommendations to modernize a governance structure that has remained largely unchanged while California's education system has grown dramatically in size, complexity and responsibility." The bill is expected to pass as part of the budget package that takes effect July 1.