TIME LGBT

California Attorney General Blocks Initiative to Have Gays Executed

"This proposal not only threatens public safety, it is patently unconstitutional, utterly reprehensible, and has no place in a civil society," Harris said

(SAN FRANCISCO) — California Attorney General Kamala Harris asked a state court on Wednesday for permission to reject a proposed ballot initiative stipulating that anyone who engages in gay sex be killed.

Harris issued a statement saying she was making the unusual request to stop the measure filed by a Southern California lawyer late last month. The initiative seeks to amend the California penal code to make sex with a person of the same gender an offense punishable by “bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.” The distribution of gay “propaganda” would be punishable by a $1 million fine or banishment from the state.

“This proposal not only threatens public safety, it is patently unconstitutional, utterly reprehensible, and has no place in a civil society,” Harris said.

Matthew McLaughlin, the Orange County lawyer who paid $200 to submit the initiative, did not respond to a telephone call seeking comment. A Democratic state senator, Ricardo Lara, has asked the California bar to investigate whether McLaughlin’s actions make him unfit to practice law.

The measure puts Harris in a difficult position. Although the bill has no discernible momentum or likely chance of success, she said unless a judge rules otherwise, she will have no choice but to give McLaughlin the go-ahead to seek the nearly 366,000 votes needed to qualify the measure for the November 2016 ballot.

California is one of 21 states where citizens can petition to have laws put on the ballot through the gathering of voter signatures. Under California’s initiative process, state officials do not have authority to refuse to administer initiatives they find objectionable, the California Supreme Court has ruled. Although few of the dozens submitted to the attorney general each year make it on the ballot, the ease with which a resident with a pet peeve can gain clearance to circulate their proposals while seeking signatures has prompted calls for reform.

University of California, Davis law professor Floyd Feeney, an expert on California’s initiative process, said Harris alone cannot impede the proposed law. And despite the numerous legal problems with McLaughlin’s proposal, Feeney said he was not convinced a court would agree to halt it at this stage.

“The courts, rightly or wrongly, treat the initiative as sort of the citizen right and they are reluctant to get involved in trying to get rid of it, at least in advance, by using the law to keep something from being presented to the electorate,” he said.

On Wednesday, a Southern California real estate agent, Charlotte Laws, countered the so-called “Sodomite Suppression Act” with an initiative of her own. Titled the Intolerant Jackass Act, it would require anyone who proposes an initiative calling for the killing of gays and lesbians to attend sensitivity training and make a $5,000 donation to a pro-LGBT group.

Read next: The 10 Cities With the Highest LGBT Percentage in the U.S.

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME Crime

California Woman Arrested for Trying to Steal Two Babies, Leading to One Death

Shooting Baby Death
Scott Varley—AP Long Beach police chief Robert Luna, left, and Mayor Robert Garcia stand during a news conference in Long Beach, Calif., on March 25, 2015

Giseleangelique Rene D'Milian wanted to convince her boyfriend that he was the children's father

In a crime that authorities could only describe as “evil,” a 47-year-old woman in Long Beach, Calif., stands accused of attempting to snatch two infants, resulting in the death of a 3-week-old girl and serious injuries to both of their mothers.

Colluding with three other suspects, Giseleangelique Rene D’Milian, of Thousand Oaks, hatched a plot to steal two children in order to convince her boyfriend that she had given birth to his twins while he was abroad, according to police.

D’Milian spotted her first victim in January, a woman with a newborn who had gotten off a bus and was walking home, reports the Associated Press. Accomplice Anthony McCall, 29, of Vista, waited a couple of hours before he kidnapped the newborn Eliza Delacruz, shooting both of her parents and an uncle in the melee. Eliza’s body was found the day in a dumpster around 100 miles south.

Then in February, D’Milian used a fake charity as a front for luring an acquaintance with a son who was only 4 months old to a hotel, where McCall then assaulted her with a baseball bat. However, he fled when staff were alerted to the ruckus.

“In my notes, I had the word evil several times, and my staff told me to take it out but I can’t summarize it any other way,” police chief Robert Luna told reporters.

D’Milian and McCall are being held on suspicion of murder, attempted murder, kidnapping and conspiracy.

[AP]

MONEY Macroeconomic trends

8 Surprising Economic Trends That Will Shape the Next Century

crowd of people
Douglas Mason—Getty Images

Here are the stories that will matter in the years ahead.

Forget monthly jobs reports, GDP releases, and quarterly earnings. As I see it, there are eight important economic stories worth tracking right now that could have a big impact in the coming decades.

1. The U.S. population age 30-44 declined by 3.8 million from 2002 to 2012. That cohort is now growing again. By 2023 there will be an estimated 5.8 million more Americans aged 30 to 44 than there are now, according to the Census Bureau. This is important, because this age group spends tons of money, buys lots of homes and cars, and start lots of new businesses.

2. U.S. companies have $2.1 trillion cash held abroad. Much of this is because we have an inane tax code that taxes foreign profits twice: Once in the country they’re earned in, and again when companies bring that money back to the United States. If Congress ends this rule and switches to a territorial tax system — in which countries can bring foreign-earned cash back to their home country without paying another layer of taxes, as every other developed country allows — there could be a flood of new dividends, buybacks, and investments in America. It’s huge, pent-up demand waiting to be spent.

3. U.S. infrastructure is in disastrous shape. Roads, bridges, dams, and other public infrastructure have been neglected for years. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $3.6 trillion in new investment is needed by 2020 to bring the country’s infrastructure up to “good” condition. Will this happen soon? Of course not. This is Congress we’re talking about. But the good news is that this work must eventually be done. You can’t just let critical bridges and water structures fail and say, “Damn. That Brooklyn Bridge was nice while we had it.” Things will have to be repaired. Sooner rather than later would be smart, because we can borrow now for zero percent interest. But someday, it will happen. And it’ll be a huge boon to jobs and growth when it does.

4. The whole structure of modern business is changing. I’m not sure who said it first, but this quote has been floating around Twitter lately: “In 2015 Uber, the world’s largest taxi company owns no vehicles, Facebook the world’s most popular media owner creates no content, Alibaba, the most valuable retailer has no inventory, and Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider owns no real estate.” Fundamental assumptions about what is needed to be a successful business have changed in just the last few years.

5. California is one of the most important agricultural states, growing 99% of the nation’s artichokes, 94% of broccoli, 95% of celery, 95% of garlic, 85% of lettuce, 95% of tomatoes, 73% of spinach, 73% of melons, 69% of carrots, 99% of almonds, 98% of pistachios, and 89% of berries (the list goes on). And the state is basically running out of water. Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, wrote last week: “Right now the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, and our strategic backup supply, groundwater, is rapidly disappearing. California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year megadrought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain.” This could change rapidly in one good winter, but it could also turn into a quick tailwind on food prices. It could also be a huge boost for desalination companies.

6. New home construction will probably need to rise 40% from current levels to keep up with long-term household formation. We’re now building about 1 million new homes a year. That will likely have to rise to an average of 1.4 million per year, which combines Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies’ projection of 1.2 million new households being formed each year and an annual average of 200,000 homes being lost to natural disaster or torn down. This is important because new home construction is, historically, one of the top drivers of economic growth.

7. American households have the lowest debt burden in more than three decades. And the largest portion of household debt is mortgages, most of which are fixed-rate. So when people ask, “What’s going to happen to debt burdens when interest rates rise?”, the answer is “Probably not that much.”

8. America has some of the best demographics among major economies. Between 2012 and 2050, America’s working-age population (those ages 15-64) is projected to rise by 47 million. China’s working-age population is set to shrink by 200 million, Russia’s to fall by 34 million, Japan’s by 27 million, Germany’s by 13 million, and France’s by 1 million. People worry about the impact of retiring U.S. baby boomers, but the truth is we have favorable demographics other countries can’t even dream about. This is massively overlooked and underappreciated.

There’s a lot more important stuff going on, of course. And the biggest news story of the next 20 years is almost certainly something that nobody is talking about today. But if I had to bet on eight big trends that will very likely make a difference, these would be them.

For more:

TIME Addiction

California Launches Campaign Against E-Cigarettes

The new ads are part of a new campaign called "Wake Up"

California rolled out new television and digital ads about the dangers of e-cigarettes on Monday.

The new ads air just two months after the California Department of Health (CDPH) declared e-cigarettes a public health risk, and warned Californians to stay away from them. The new ads are part of the agency’s new campaign called “Wake Up,” which suggests e-cigarettes are just another mass marketed product with serious health consequences.

MORE: California Says E-Cigarettes a Health Risk

Both ads feature songs from the ’50s and ’60s, when traditional cigarette marketing was prevalent. One ad titled “What Could Go Wrong” underlines the fact that Big Tobacco is also involved in the e-cigarette market. The ads call e-cigarettes “a new way to inhale toxic chemicals.”

Another calls out candy-flavored e-cigarette products that California health officials believe market to children.

“California has been a world leader in tobacco use prevention and cessation since 1990, with one of the lowest youth and adult smoking rates in the nation. The aggressive marketing and escalating use of e-cigarettes threatens to erode that progress,” said Dr. Karen Smith, the CDPH director and state health officer, in a statement. “Our advertising campaign is telling the public to ‘wake up’ to the fact that these are highly addictive products being mass marketed.”

In a health advisory released by the CDPH in January, the state reports that e-cigarette use has spiked among California teenagers and young adults.

TIME Environment

California Announces $1 Billion Emergency Drought Relief Package

California Drought-Field Poll
Rich Pedroncelli—AP Houseboats sit in the drought lowered waters of Oroville Lake, near Oroville, Calif. in 2014.

The move comes days after new rules cracking down on lawn watering and tap water at restaurants

As if Californians needed another reminder that their state is dangerously hot and dry, they got it on March 15 when more than 30 runners at the Los Angeles marathon were hospitalized due to record high temperatures. The late winter heat wave — the mercury climbed above 90 in the city and surrounding areas — offered stark notice that, four years into a severe drought, the Golden State remains desperately parched with little relief in sight.

Gov. Jerry Brown and a bipartisan group of state lawmakers attempted to deliver some form of it Thursday when they announced a $1 billion plan to provide immediate relief and stave off future problems.

“This is a struggle,” Brown reportedly said during a press conference announcing the package. “Something we’re going to have to live with. For how long, we’re not sure.”

While the legislation includes millions of dollars in emergency aid, it also earmarks $660 million for flood prevention. Brown explained that flood control and drought relief were of a piece, according to the Los Angeles Times, describing them as “extreme weather events” related to climate change.

The new measures come two days after state officials voted March 17 to enact some of the broadest and strictest statewide water limits in California history. Outdoor lawn and landscape watering, which accounts for about half of all consumption in urban areas, will be limited to two days per week.

“It’s the number one thing that could be done and it’s easy,” says Jay Famiglietti, the senior water scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California.

The water board regulations will also ban residents from irrigating during rainstorms and for two days afterward. And restaurants will be permitted to offer tap water to patrons only upon request.

Given how little the new water regulations ask of residents, it’s easy to wonder why they weren’t enacted earlier. With surface water at dangerously low levels and non-renewable groundwater being depleted at a rapid pace, Famiglietti warned in a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed that the state must immediately ration water before California’s supply is gone completely.

“Because of the severity of the situation, I do think the public is ready for it,” Famiglietti says.

Several polls appear to back him up. An October 2014 survey found that Californians are just as worried about the drought as they are about the economy. Ninety-four percent of state residents polled in February said they consider the drought to be “serious.” Still, Californians seem unwilling to voluntarily curb their water consumption as much as officials would like. In January 2014, Brown urged Californians to reduce their water use by 20 percent. Statewide usage this past in January was just 9 percent less than the same month in 2013.

“Even though it was historically dry, it was still raining,” says Sarah Rose, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters. “People see the rain and think they can go back to their old habits. We’re going to have to create new habits.”

While experts call the new water board rules a step in the right direction, they worry that more drastic, but necessary, measures like rationing and water price increases still haven’t been proposed.

“No one wants to be responsible for delivering the hard news that people have to significantly change their behavior,” says Charles Stringer, chair of the regional water board in Southern California. “We’re trying to get where we need to go without too much pain and sacrifice. But what the water experts and policy makers are saying with increasing urgency is that’s not possible.”

New regulations come with their own problems of how to enforce them. “There’s not going to be the manpower to do it,” says Famiglietti. A recent investigation by the Associated Press found that after California authorized emergency drought measures last summer to allow local communities to issue $500 fines for excessive water use, few residents actually got tickets.

In the meantime, officials are hoping public information campaigns might be more effective. One water district in Northern California has adopted “Brown is the New Green” as a new motto, encouraging residents to let their lawns die to conserve water. “People should feel really proud of having a brown lawn,” says Famiglietti.

TIME Innovation

Five Best Ideas of the Day: March 18

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

1. What does the world’s indifference to Syria’s horror tell us about ourselves?

By Barry Malone at Al Jazeera English on Medium

2. California has about one year of water left.

By Jay Famiglietti in the Los Angeles Times

3. Traditional democratic institutions are failing. It’s time for an upgrade.

By John Boik, Lorenzo Fioramonti, and Gary Milante in Foreign Policy

4. For the first time in four decades, the global economy grew last year, but carbon emissions didn’t. That’s huge.

By Brad Plumer in Vox

5. Can we build an Internet that includes the hearing impaired?

By Steve Friess in Time

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME California

3 Killed, 4 Wounded in Shooting at California Grocery Store

At least three people are dead and four people are wounded in a shooting at a grocery store

(STOCKTON, Calif.) — Police in Northern California say at least three people are dead and four people are wounded in a shooting at a grocery store.

Stockton police say one person was killed Tuesday night at the store in Stockton and another two died at a hospital.

The Stockton Record reports the victim who died at the store was a woman. She was found on a sidewalk outside. Some of the wounded victims were found inside the market.

Dozens of people gathered in the area after the shooting, and additional police had to be called to help control the crowd.

TIME weather

California Tightens Water Restrictions Amid Historic Drought

California Drought Water Regulation
Justin Sullivan—Getty Images A sign is posted near an almond farm on Feb. 25, 2014 in Turlock, Calif.

You'll have to ask for water at restaurants and bars

(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) — Amid a historic drought, the California State Water Resources Control Board voted Tuesday to extend and expand restrictions on water use.

Local water departments will enforce the rules, which are designed to boost water supplies. Here’s a look at how the regulations will affect California residents and businesses:

___

RESTAURANTS

Servers in bars, restaurants and cafeterias can’t bring out water with menus and silverware unless customers ask. Some restaurants already have signs saying they don’t automatically serve water because of the drought. The rule is meant to raise conservation awareness more than save water.

___

HOTELS

Hotel guests must get a chance to decline fresh towels and sheets. Business operators must place signs in the bathroom reminding them they have this opportunity to conserve.

___

LAWNS

Local water departments have to limit how many days a week people water their lawns. The state standard is twice a week. Homeowners are also barred from turning on sprinklers on days when it rains and for the next two days after.

___

LEAKS

If local water departments get wind of leaks in homes and businesses, they must notify the customers. The rules don’t spell out how, but the warnings can be included in bills or left on a door hanger.

___

EXISTING RULES

Hosing down driveways and sidewalks is barred, and residents can only wash cars if their hoses can shut off. Decorative fountains can’t use drinking-quality water unless they have recirculating pumps. Sprinklers must stay on grass and not spray sidewalks and streets.

___

ENFORCEMENT

Violators face a fine of up to $500 a day, but enforcement varies and severe penalties are rare. Local water departments must start reporting how they ensure their customers follow the water rules.

TIME Transportation

Uber, Lyft Lawsuits Could Spell Trouble For the On-Demand Economy

Lyft Car
Justin Sullivan—Getty Images A Lyft customer gets into a car on January 21, 2014 in San Francisco, California.

Judges allowed the lawsuits over drivers to be heard by juries

The ride-app services Uber and Lyft were dealt a setback by two separate California judges Wednesday, who ruled that juries would decide the fate of lawsuits that could have broad implications for a range of tech startups.

The lawsuits were filed by workers who allege they are misclassified as independent contractors so the businesses don’t have to reimburse the drivers’ expenses like they would for employees. The plaintiffs believe they’re owed money for outlays like gas, insurance and vehicle maintenance—costs that could be enormous if juries determine they’re owed to tens of thousands of active drivers working for Lyft and Uber in California. The companies had sought separate summary judgments dismissing the cases, but the judges in California’s North District Court denied them, saying their peers would have to determine the status of the drivers.

“This is a huge milestone and major victory for drivers in both cases,” says Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Boston-based labor lawyer working on both cases. Her firm has brought cases on behalf of a range of low-wage workers, from Starbucks baristas to exotic dancers to house cleaners. “There’s this whole wave of companies who seem to think that they’re above the law and don’t need to comply with employment and wage laws,” she says. “They’re claiming there’s something new and different because their services are provided through technology, through a smartphone … but there’s nothing new about this.”

A spokesperson for Lyft says they are not commenting on pending litigation. Uber sent TIME a similar statement.

The legal fight is being closely watched by the many other startups who depend on the growing “1099 workforce,” people who are generally willing to trade a 9-to-5 work week and health insurance for a more flexible job. The ranks of this workforce have been growing along with the public’s appetite for the services they provide, like on-demand rides, groceries, hot meals, flowers and house cleaning. “It’s not only the consumer who says ‘I want it on demand.’ The supply is on demand,” says Ravi Dhar, a Yale management professor.

Businesses that use these on-demand workers have been able to scale fast partly because they are not on the hook for treating their personal shoppers or drivers or deliverymen like employees. Among the other startups that could be affected by the eventual rulings is Instacart, a company that organizes workers who shop for and deliver groceries to users in as little as an hour. The company is less than three years old and has been valued at $2 billion. Just as Uber has long insisted that the company is a not a transportation service, executives at Instacart say that they are not a grocery delivery company but a software platform whose app allows people to deliver groceries to other people who want them.

Liss-Riordan notes that in rejecting the companies’ requests to have the cases dismissed, the judges were also rejecting the notion that Uber and Lyft are not in the business of providing transportation. As U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria wrote in his ruling:

Lyft tepidly asserts there is no need to decide how to classify the drivers, because they don’t perform services for Lyft in the first place. Under this theory, Lyft drivers perform services only for their riders, while Lyft is an uninterested bystander of sorts, merely furnishing a platform that allows drivers and riders to connect, analogous perhaps to a company like eBay. But that is obviously wrong.

Yet that doesn’t mean the juries will have an easy decision to make. Chhabria noted in his ruling that the labor laws at issue were written in a pre-sharing economy era. “As should now be clear,” he wrote, “the jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to choose between two round holes. The test the California courts have developed over the 20th Century for classifying workers isn’t very helpful in addressing this 21st Century problem.”

For now, these cases apply only to drivers in California, though Liss-Riordan says she has been contacted by hundreds of drivers and intends to create a nationwide class-action suit. She expects Uber to invoke an arbitration clause that prohibits many drivers from joining a class-action suit, forcing the them to bring any claims against the company on a individual basis. Lyft has waived a similar clause. “If Uber really wants to try these cases one by one in arbitration, we’ll do that,” she says.

If the juries find that drivers for the two biggest players in the new ride-app economy are owed for gas, that could lead to other standard employee benefits. The companies could be on the hook for workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance. They could be forced to pay drivers overtime and make sure they’re at least making minimum wage. Uber, the larger company, would also be looking at larger payouts. While Lyft has been valued at $2.5 billion, Uber has garnered valuations of $40 billion.

Read next: Cab Drivers No Longer Required to Learn N.Y.C.’s Streets

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME natural disaster

The Odds of a Massive Earthquake Hitting California Just Went Up

The Marina district disaster zone after an earthquake, measuring 7.1 on the richter scale on Oct. 17, 1989 in San Francisco.
Otto Greule Jr—Getty Images The Marina district disaster zone after an earthquake, measuring 7.1 on the richter scale on Oct. 17, 1989 in San Francisco.

But the chances of a moderate earthquake went down

The chances of earthquake magnitude 8.0 or greater hitting California in the next 30 years have been increased from about 4.7% to 7%, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said in a statement Tuesday.

The revised forecast was calculated by the Third California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3), a follow-up to 2008’s UCERF2 conducted by USGS and its partners, who modeled the latest geological data.

While UCERF3 increased the odds of a massive California earthquake, the study lowered the chance of an earthquake around magnitude 6.7—like the 1994 Northridge earthquake—by about 30%, from one every 4.8 years to one every 6.3 years.

“The new likelihoods are due to the inclusion of possible multi-fault ruptures, where earthquakes are no longer confined to separate, individual faults, but can occasionally rupture multiple faults simultaneously,” said the study’s lead author Ned Field.

Read next: A Village in Italy Just Got 8 Feet of Snow in 1 Day

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com