Last week, the Official Voter Information Guide for the June 2026 Primary began arriving in California mailboxes statewide. Tucked inside that state-issued booklet, alongside the legitimate candidate statements you would expect, was something most of us never imagined would appear under the seal of the State of California: a violent screed of antisemitic conspiracy theories, accompanied by links to overtly racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and white nationalist websites.
A disclaimer on the page does not undo that harm. When antisemitic conspiracy theories are printed in an official government document and mailed to 23 million people, those lies are given a platform and a veneer of legitimacy they would never otherwise have. This should not have happened, and we must ensure current guidelines are clarified, strengthened, and consistently enforced so it never does again.
We have been in communication with the Secretary of State’s office regarding current and future steps that can be taken. We are also working closely with the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and Assemblymember Gail Pellerin – a Jewish Caucus member and chair of the Assembly Elections Committee – on legislation to ensure that hate of this kind never again appears in an official state publication. We will keep you updated as this work progresses.
This episode arrives at a moment when antisemitism is surging across the country and across the political spectrum. Our community continues to be targeted from many places at once – in our schools, at our synagogues, online, and now in our mailboxes. The through line is the same: Jews remain a convenient scapegoat for grievances of every ideological stripe. California must not – inadvertently or otherwise – become a megaphone for any of it.
Assemblymember Gail Pellerin
“During my 27 years as a county elections official, I rejected numerous candidate statements that failed to comply with the Elections Code’s requirement that they be limited to a recitation of a candidate’s background and qualifications. The antisemitic statement included in the state voter information guide is reprehensible. It does not reflect California’s values and has no place in voter resources produced and distributed by the state. I will work with my colleagues to advance legislation that ensures that this kind of content never appears in official election materials again.” –Assemblymember Gail Pellerin
We are grateful to Assemblymember Pellerin and the Jewish Caucus for their steadfast partnership and forceful response – their full statement is available here – and to our partners who raised the alarm last week and laid the groundwork for the state’s response.
This is a reminder that California has the people, the institutions, and the political will to get this right. We will keep showing up with our partners and our allies in the Capitol until we do.
Onward,
David Bocarsly
CEO
Jewish California (formerly JPAC)
Jewish California’s 43 member organizations — including Jewish Federations, Jewish Community Relations Councils, Jewish Family Service agencies, and others — serve hundreds of thousands of Californians of all backgrounds and represent the interests of California’s 1.2 million Jews.
Friday May 1st, 2026 will be a Workers Over Billionaires national day of action. Workers, students, and families will be marching, rallying, training, walking out and taking action together to demand:
Tax the rich so our families, not their fortunes, come first,
No ICE. No war. No private army serving authoritarian power.
Expand democracy. Hands off our vote.
Following the examples of the 2006 Day Without Immigrants, Black-led corporate campaigns that have unseated CEOs, and Minnesota’s resistance to occupation, thousands of organizations across the country are calling for a day of “No School, No Work, No Shopping” to disrupt the violent billionaire takeover of our country and to put working families first. Because when the billionaires break every rule, it’s going to take more than a rally to stop them. Together we show where real power lives in this country: with workers, not billionaires.
The waterfront in Benicia on April 24, 2026. State leaders negotiated an agreement with Valero this year to use its idled Benicia facility to store and transport imported fuel, which brings little economic activity while freezing redevelopment plans. (Martin do Nascimento/KQED)
In the city of Benicia on the bank of the Carquinez Strait, the view has fundamentally changed: smoke, steam, and black soot no longer spiral from the stacks of the Valero refinery, which stopped refining crude oil in April. So why are residents holding their breath?
With the shuttering of the refinery, Benicia became the latest test case for California’s promise of a “just transition” from fossil fuels to renewable energy that protects workers’wages and livelihoods, invests in economically disadvantaged communities and reduces pollution impacts on the most vulnerable communities. Many Benicians are optimistic they have the assets and the know-how to succeed. But in a politically charged environment where gasoline prices are spiraling higher, California’s shifting interests threaten to delay any rebirth of the city.
State leaders negotiated an agreement with Valero this year to use its idled Benicia facility to store and transport imported fuel, which brings little economic activity while freezing redevelopment plans.
For more than half a century, Benicia’s economy and identity have depended on oil production. Valero’s 400-plus employees, a quarter of whom lived in town, spent some of their paychecks at First Street’s bars and restaurants, which also served hundreds more workers contracted for maintenance each year. Local businesses provided equipment, parts and services to Valero and must find a new market — or pivot to make a new product. Benicia businesses expect the ripple effects of the refinery closure to devastate livelihoods.
The closure was expected. California established its goal to completely phase out fossil fuels to combat global warming more than a decade ago. But Benicia is losing its largest taxpayer much sooner than the city can afford.
Valero’s refinery shutdown will cost Benicia an estimated $10.8 million annually in tax revenues, about 13% of the city’s general fund budget. The city manager reassured residents at a packed February town hall that they could still count on city services funded by $3 million in cash reserves. The city planned to sell water that Valero used, half the city’s supply, to other businesses, and applied for millions of dollars worth of community grants from the Bay Area Air District to sustain staff.
The Martinez Refining Company is seen across the Carquinez Strait from Benicia, on April 13, 2026, as regional refining operations face uncertainty amid California’s transition away from fossil fuels. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)
In the long term, Benecia’s leaders are banking on redevelopment of Valero’s 900 acres to bring new tax revenue and vitalize the local economy.
Nearly 500 of those acres were a buffer to mitigate risks of explosions, fires, emissions and other pollution. The land could be developed sooner than the land under the refinery itself, which state regulators expect could take ten years to clean up.
“I wanna see dismantling and movement into our future,” said Kari Birdseye, a Benicia city council member, “I’m not sure that’s the vision that the state has right now because of the precarious nature of our petroleum situation.”
California state leaders have primarily focused on stabilizing fuel supply and keeping gas prices from spiraling out of control.
On April 16, 2025, Valero announced it planned to idle, restructure, or cease refining operations in Benicia. This came six months after Phillips 66 declared its plans to stop refining in Wilmington, Los Angeles, by the year’s end.
At the time, these facilities comprised nearly 20% of California’s refining capacity. The closures threatened to push oil prices higher — a political and economic disaster in a state where gasoline historically costs $0.90 more per gallon than the national average, according to the U.S. Energy and Information Administration.
Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to Valero’s announcement with a letter dated April 21 to the California Energy Commission, directing the state agency responsible for sustaining fuel supply to “redouble its efforts” with “high-level immediate engagement, to help ensure that Californians continue to have access to a safe, affordable, and reliable supply of transportation fuels.”
A month later, Siva Gunda, vice chair of the energy commission, recommended easing regulations to increase fuel imports and local production. Many of the suggestions were enacted with the passage of SB 237 in September.
Environmentalists criticized the legislative changes as an oil industry wish list. They waived California’s requirement to switch to a lower emission fuel in summer months, exempted some oil and gas well permits from final environmental review, and paused penalties on excessive oil profits that lawmakers created to prevent price gouging.
None of the changes persuaded Valero to keep refining in Benicia. However, in January, the company agreed to import gasoline to meet its obligations to the state.
The Valero refinery in Benicia on Sept. 21, 2023. (Martin do Nascimento/KQED)
Benicia officials said they have not been in negotiations between the state and Valero. But Lauren Bird, the facilities general manager, told the Citizens’ Advisory Panel on April 17 that the refinery will import, store and transport gas and diesel for about two years, though it will no longer import jet fuel.
Using Valero’s facility for imports provides little economic benefit to Benicia and delays redevelopment of 900 acres of prime real estate.
“It basically eliminates our ability to have any new development on the property,” said Christina Gilpin-Hayes, a resident who serves on with the city’s planning commission. “Nobody’s gonna want it. Even the land that’s the buffer acres, nobody’s gonna want to develop there if [Valero] is still using it.”
An energy commission spokesperson could not discuss the talks due to industry confidentiality rules, but said in an email that the agency is working with Benicia and stakeholders on alternatives for the facility.
A mural depicting historic downtown Benicia is seen along First Street on April 28, 2026, in Benicia. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)
Some residents have called it a back-door deal and said they worry imported gasoline is a fire safety risk.
“What is the state gonna do for us given that they’re imposing this?” said Marilyn Bardet, a member of the community advisory panel, at the February town hall.
Gunda declined KQED’s request for an interview. But said at a state Senate committee hearing on Feb. 18 that much of the energy commission’s work in the last year was aimed at keeping gasoline costs from rising above $5 a gallon, which worked until the U.S. war with Iran pushed up prices globally.
Gunda urged lawmakers to turn to mitigating the economic impacts of refinery closures.
“These unplanned, disruptive closures could have incredible impacts on the workers and the communities,” Gunda said. “It’s really important … to make sure we have the policies in place to support the transition in a way that we protect Californians.”
“ I’d like to think that some of these strategies are forthcoming,” said Josh Sonnenfeld, a senior researcher at UC Berkeley Labor Center. “Given this is the sixth refinery closure or conversion [in six years], I think we need to pick up our pace here.”
Sonnenfeld previously worked for the Blue Green Alliance, which helped Contra Costa County mitigate the 2020 conversion of the Marathon Refinery to renewable diesel. That change cost 700 refinery workers well-paid union jobs. In response, state lawmakers established the Displaced Oil and Gas Workers Fund to help pay for training and job searches.
The Workforce Development Board of Solano County received $3 million from the fund last year to help laid-off Valero workers, and is offering up to $25,000 in grants to small businesses affected by the closure. Advocates have lobbied to extend and expand the fund, as its authorization sunsets in 2027.
Sonnefeld thinks California leaders should look to other states as examples. For instance, New York created a tax stabilization fund for refinery towns and cities to make up for the sudden loss of refinery dollars, while Michigan and Minnesota each established a community transition office.
“We haven’t set up that infrastructure yet in California around whose job is it to make sure that workers and communities are successfully transitioning,” Sonnenfeld said. “In California, we don’t want to acknowledge that they’re actually folks that are being hurt by the energy transition.”
A visitor walks along First Street near the waterfront on April 28, 2026, in Benicia. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)
Sonnenfeld said regional governments have shouldered more of the responsibility for mitigating the impact of refinery closures.
The Bay Area Air District launched a first-of-a-kind program this year where regulatory fines against polluters will be passed on to affected communities in the form of grants.
The air regulator issued $82 million in fines against Valero in 2024 for over a decade of excess emissions at the Benicia refinery, which will provide some $60 million in funding.
Benicia plans to seek up to $43 million of the grants, which are also open to local businesses. Applications are due in May, and the awards are expected to be announced in September. That’s the same month that Signature Development, the company Valero hired to manage the sale of refinery land, is expected to present plans to repurpose the property to the city council for approval.
The waterfront in Benicia on April 24, 2026. (Martin do Nascimento/KQED)
Until then, Benicia is on a white-knuckle transition trying to jumpstart a new, green economy without knowing when Valero will leave, or how long it will take to decontaminate and repurpose the refinery site.
The state legislature is considering a bill to help California’s eight remaining refinery towns plan better. SB 1259 would require refineries to plan for decommissioning and estimate the costs and timeline for cleaning up after a closure.
Birdseye said the legislation wouldn’t benefit Benicia.
“We’re in a very precarious moment,” Birdseye said. “ But I’m filled with hope because of what we have here.”
Kari Birdseye, a Benicia City Council member, stands overlooking Benicia’s marine oil terminal near the site of the Benicia Clocktower, on April 13, 2026, in Benicia, as the city prepares for the closure of the Valero refinery and the loss of roughly 10 percent of its annual tax revenue. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)
Birdseye said businesses have inquired about moving to Benicia for its central location between two interstate highways, with a rail line and port.
From the city’s old clock tower, Birdseye gestured to a berth below, where Valero had exported petroleum coke, a black dust that’s a refining byproduct and a health hazard. She said a federal agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, has identified the port as a possible supply chain and manufacturing site for the nascent offshore wind industry in California.
“We can put these large pieces of equipment on ships that go out the Golden Gate and either go down to the Port of Long Beach, Morro Bay or up to Humboldt, where they can be assembled into wind turbines,” Birdseye said. “That’s the perfect scenario for a just transition away from fossil fuels.”
On a recent afternoon at Benicia’s waterfront, resident Stephen Golub said one thing lost in the economic discussions about Valero’s departure is the gains in environmental and public health.
Stephen Golub, a Benicia resident, poses for a portrait along the waterfront on April 28, 2026, in Benicia. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)
“They were polluting our air again and again, sometimes secretly, sometimes more openly,” Golub said. “They were poisoning our politics by pouring massive funds into political campaigns.”
Golub said without a refinery, it’s easier to enjoy all that Benicia has to offer, including 28 public parks, stable political leadership, a vibrant art scene, good schools and safe streets.
“Down the line, maybe 10 or 20 years, people will talk about this thriving community with all it has to offer, and they’ll say, ‘Hey, did you know that there was once a refinery here?’” Golub said.“I really think that’s what’s in the city’s future.”
Introduction from Elizabeth Patterson, April 29, 026
The California Chamber of Commerce has qualified an initiative on dismantling CEQA. Backed by Silicon Valley tech bros and lots of money, there is pressing need to inform voters. Below is the announcement of an informational zoom meeting. >EP
2026 CEQA Ballot Initiative Briefing
The Planning and Conservation League is hosting an informational zoom meeting about the CalChamber ballot initiative on Tuesday, May 5, at 5pm. The zoom registration link is here.
It is imperative that we spread the word about this CEQA-gutting measure and discuss ways our communities can combat it. People who will be presenting on the zoom include:
Aruna Prabhala, Center for Biological Diversity
Gabriel Tolson, Planning and Conservation League
Rachel Hooper, Legal advisor to PCL
Severn Williams, Public Good PR
As a reminder, the initiative applies to entire sprawl housing subdivisions in wildfire zones, toxic industrial projects like landfill gas facilities, large water infrastructure like dams and desalination plants, and all new freeway projects. For these projects, it eviscerates CEQA’s longstanding rules governing environmental review and radically curtails courts’ authority to issue injunctions and other appropriate remedies. The measure is heavily funded by corporate interests and billionaires – the proponents have already raised over $14 million, and have budgeted an additional $50-100 million to pass the measure.
Finally, we greatly appreciate everyone’s cooperation in signing the joint letter to the Legislature about the initiative. We will circulate the final letter to all signatories after it is submitted.
You must be logged in to post a comment.